36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 130
CONTENTS
Tuesday, October 17, 2000
1000
1005
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Information Commissioner
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1010
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1015
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1020
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1025
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1030
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1035
| Mr. John Bryden |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| CLEAN INTERNET ACT
|
| Bill C-507. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1040
| WHISTLE BLOWER HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
|
| Bill C-508. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| COMPETITION ACT
|
| Bill C-509. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
| PETITIONS
|
| Genetically Modified Foods
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Health Care
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Canada Post Corporation
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Health Care
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1045
| Highways
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Criminal Code
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Sikhs
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Gasoline Pricing
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
| Information Commissioner's Report
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1050
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| AN ACT TO INCORPORATE THE WESTERN CANADA TELEPHONE COMPANY
|
| Bill S-26. Second reading
|
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
1055
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1100
| Mr. John Cannis |
1105
1110
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1115
1120
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1125
| CANADA HEALTH CARE, EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER
|
| Bill C-45. Second reading
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1130
1135
1140
1145
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1150
1155
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1200
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1205
1210
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1215
1220
1225
1230
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1235
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1240
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1245
1250
1255
1300
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1305
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1310
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
1315
1320
1325
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1330
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1335
1340
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1345
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Mr. John Herron |
1350
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1355
| AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| MISS INDIA-CANADA PAGEANT
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| FEDERAL ELECTION
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1400
| PERFORMING ARTS AWARDS
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| THE FRANCOPHONIE
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| DESJARDINS WEEK
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| DARRELL AND ANTHEA ARCHER
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1405
| CANADIAN FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| INFORMATION COMMISSIONER'S REPORT
|
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| THAMES RIVER
|
| Mr. Jerry Pickard |
| CANADIAN FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| A WEEK WITHOUT VIOLENCE
|
| Mr. Murray Calder |
1410
| CANADIAN FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| INTERNATIONAL ANTI-POVERTY DAY
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| WORLD MARCH OF WOMEN
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| ATLANTIC TOURISM INDUSTRY
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| WORLD MARCH OF WOMEN
|
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
1415
| BRAIN TUMOUR AWARENESS MONTH
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| INFORMATION COMMISSIONER'S REPORT
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1425
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Auditor General's Report
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1430
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1435
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| INFORMATION COMMISSIONER'S REPORT
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1440
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| INFORMATION COMMISSIONER'S REPORT
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1445
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. John Williams |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
|
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1450
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| Mr. Benoît Serré |
| TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION
|
| Mr. Réginald Bélair |
1455
| Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
| GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| INFORMATION COMMISSIONER'S REPORT
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| HOUSING
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1500
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
| Mr. Ivan Grose |
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1505
| Motion
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
|
| Bill S-25. Second reading
|
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1510
1515
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1520
1525
1530
1535
1540
| Mr. René Laurin |
1545
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1550
1555
1600
| Mr. André Bachand |
1605
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1610
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1615
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Information Commissioner—Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
1620
1625
| DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
|
| Bill S-25. Second reading
|
1630
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
1635
| CANADA HEALTH CARE, EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER
|
| Bill C-45. Second reading
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1640
1645
1650
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1655
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1700
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1705
1710
1715
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1720
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1725
| Mr. John Cannis |
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Poverty and Violence Against Women
|
| Motion
|
1800
(Division 1426)
| Amendment agreed to
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1805
| PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
|
| Motion
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1810
1815
| Mr. John Bryden |
1820
1825
| Mr. André Bachand |
1830
1835
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
1840
1845
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1850
1855
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
1900
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
1905
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| PEACEKEEPING
|
| Hon. John Manley |
1910
1915
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1920
| Mr. Art Hanger |
1925
1930
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1935
| Mr. Art Hanger |
1940
1945
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1950
1955
2000
2005
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
2010
2015
2020
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
2025
| Mr. André Bachand |
2030
2035
| Hon. Maria Minna |
2040
2045
| Mr. George Proud |
2050
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
2055
2100
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 130
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, October 17, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1000
[English]
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, there have been
consultations among all parties in the House and I believe you
would find unanimous consent for the following motion:
1005
That, at the ordinary time of daily adjournment on Tuesday,
October 17, 2000, today, no proceedings pursuant to Standing Order
38 shall be taken up and the House shall continue to sit for the
purpose of considering a motion that this House take note of
possible Canadian peacekeeping activities in Ethiopia and
Eritrea; that during the debate on the said motion members may
speak for no more than 20 minutes, with a 10 minute question and
comment period, provided that two members may divide one speaking
period; that during the debate on the said motion the Chair shall
not receive any dilatory motions, quorum calls or requests for
unanimous consent to propose any motions; and, that at 10 p.m. or
when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, the House
shall adjourn to the next sitting day.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, there have been
negotiations and we look forward to tonight's debate.
As part of what we discussed earlier, we had hoped to have more
detail as to what exactly this peacekeeping mission may entail,
how many troops may be involved, what kind of terms of reference
there are and so on. Does the House leader have information that he can
table or that he is prepared to give to all the opposition
parties about that?
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I know that there have been
discussions among the parliamentary leaders concerning the
emergency debate this evening.
I would like to ask the government House leader if it would not
be possible to consider that eventuality after the question I am
about to ask of you relating to the necessity of an emergency
debate on another matter.
I have not had the opportunity to discuss this with the
government House leader, but we are aware that all these matters
need to be addressed within the next few days.
I will not therefore be able to give my consent at this time. I
would prefer it to be considered a little later, after we have
been able to hold discussions.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: We will not proceed with the request
for unanimous consent at this time.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning the
systemic intimidation of an officer of the House of Commons. This
is a very serious allegation, I admit, but in the past 24 hours
our attention has been drawn to the government's use of its
levers of power to intimidate the office of the access to
information commissioner.
As you would know as an officer of this House, the
decision on the definition of what constitutes contempt is
reserved for the collective House of Commons, that is, the issue
now before the Chair is whether there is sufficient evidence to
give this matter to the House for examination and decision.
Yesterday the Speaker laid on the table the report of the access
to information commissioner, who is similarly an officer of
parliament, both of the House of Commons and of the other place.
The commissioner has made very disturbing and troubling
allegations. I refer to his report at pages 9
and 10. I quote:
For its part, the Privy Council Office (PCO) decided to resist
and challenge almost all of the Commissioner's investigative
powers. To this end, officials of PCO have ignored orders for
the production of records; failed to fully comply with such
orders (in one case non-compliance persisted until after two
Federal Court judges had ordered PCO to comply);
It goes on in the next paragraph to say:
In this latter regard, PCO lawyers advised a senior PCO
official,
of Deputy Minister rank, to refuse to answer questions under oath
put to him by the Commissioner, because there could be no
punitive consequences. When the Information Commissioner cited
the official for contempt and began the enforcement process, PCO
also agreed to pay the legal costs associated with the
constitutional challenge....
This is blatant contempt for the commissioner.
It goes on in the final paragraph on page 9 to say:
...with no prior notice or consultation, to rescind a protocol
with the Commissioner's office which was adopted and followed
since 1984. The protocol governed the process by which the
Information Commissioner could obtain a certificate from the
Clerk of the Privy Council officially attesting that records
claimed to be Cabinet confidences are, indeed, confidences.
PCO claims now that it may exclude confidences from access
without any obligation to certify through the Commissioner (as it
must for a court) that such records are, indeed, confidences.
1010
Finally, on page 10 of the information commissioner's annual
report for 1999-2000, it says:
As for Justice Canada, the “home” department of the access law,
it decided not to defend the Access to Information Act against
the above-mentioned constitutional challenge brought against it
by the senior official of PCO and funded by the Crown. Indeed,
in proceedings before the Information Commissioner, an agent for
the Attorney General took the unprecedented position of impugning
the constitutionality of the very legislation which the Attorney
General has the duty to defend.
There is a blatant conflict of interest at work based on the
words and in this report.
As part of my submission I refer to page 11
of the report which says:
The government's palpable animosity towards the “right” of
access (it would prefer to dole out information by grace and
favour in well-digested mouthfuls) is no more apparent than in
the disconnect between talk and action in the matter of reform of
the Access to Information Act. Every study of the Act (from
Parliament's own review in 1986, to the Justice department's
internal reviews, to the Information Commissioner's reviews, to
independent, academic reviews and careful reviews conducted by
private members) has concluded that the law needs to be
modernized, strengthened and expanded.
These are very heady and very heavy words. I submit that this
report to parliament, written by an officer of parliament, raises
sufficient questions and alarms to constitute a prima facie case
that should be put before the House for examination and
disposition.
The commissioner states that the privy council office, at public
expense, has systematically challenged its powers and that the
treasury board has systematically denied the commissioner
resources to go about his duties. These are grave allegations
and grave findings which are deeply troubling and should be
deeply troubling to every member of the House.
The House has a duty to give this report a priority over other
business which the government seeks to place before the House in
its rush to a premature election call. We cannot allow this
damning report to be swept aside in a rush to the Prime
Minister's vanity election.
It is the Prime Minister himself, the man responsible for the
privy council office, who stands accused of impeding an officer
of parliament in his duties. The Prime Minister is going to
dismiss the House before we can take action using the normal
processes of examination of this report.
I call upon the Chair to put the House of Commons
first, to rule that the findings in this report raise sufficient
questions that they merit action and that the debate in the House
should take place immediately.
I am of course prepared to move the necessary motion to let the
House proceed with this issue. I expect that other House leaders
will have similar comments. Mr. Speaker, I urge you to take
action on this matter.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have two things to add to what the member said.
Personally, I have never read or seen a report from any officer
of the House so condemnatory of the government as this one. The
report talks about the denial of resources to the information
commissioner; that working for the information commissioner is
the death of one's career because of the way the government
reacts; that the privy council office is actively involved in
denying information; and that the justice minister is not only
complicit in this, but her department is actually attacking the
very legislation that gives the information commissioner the
right to do his business.
I have never heard such strong language in the seven years that I
have been in parliament. Never have I read language which
basically says that the government is trying to stop an officer
of the House from doing his job. It is doing it systematically,
routinely, day after day and across the departments.
That is something that should cause all Canadians great alarm.
1015
We just have to read not only the report but Mr. Reid's comments
that were published today in papers across the country in which
he said that democracy itself was at risk when the government
gets away with what it is doing right now. I could not agree
more.
I would also like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker,
something that happened yesterday. It does seem to fit the trend
that we see from the government. At 11 o'clock in the morning
the information commissioner's report was tabled in the House.
We in the opposition could not get copies of it until question
period had begun, three hours later. The report was tabled in
the House at 11 a.m. and we were denied access to it.
That too should be part of the debate. How can we have things
tabled in this place and then not have them available to the
members of parliament?
I do not have the exact date and time but I remember, within the
last couple of months of Speaker's rulings, where the Speaker
actually said that when anything is tabled at the Table in the
House of Commons it should be available immediately. He also
chastized the government for not making sure it was available.
I am not sure how or why that happened. I just know that for
three hours we checked the website, phoned the office of the
commissioner and did everything we could to get copies and we
were denied access to something that was tabled in the House.
There is something wrong with that and it should also be part of
the debate that I hope we enter into today. How on earth can the
government say that it is defending democracy and our
parliamentary traditions when the information officer of the
House says that the government is complicit in hiding information
that should be available, not only to the House but to Canadians
at large? Everything around here is based on our access to some
kind of information.
We should be debating this. It is an absolute condemnation of
the government in the way it has handled this whole issue. I
hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will rule that we can enter into a
debate about the confidence this place has in the government.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, our hon.
colleague has raised a point of privilege I feel is of such
importance that it requires us to intervene at this time, adding
our voice to theirs and to that of the leader of the official
opposition, in order to call for this matter to be addressed
with the utmost urgency, as well as the serious accusations made
in the information commissioner's report.
I believe it is appropriate to point out at this time—since we
have gone to the heart of the matter—that I myself asked under
Standing Order 52 that there be an emergency debate at the end
of the day today on this matter, given the serious nature of the
accusations and the fact that the report states in black and
white, and I quote:
PCO refuses to accept the clear words of Parliament giving the
Commissioner the powers of a Superior Court of Record in the
conduct of his investigations.
Of all the accusations, the serious nature of this one is
without precedent. Privy council shunts aside and rejects the
wishes of parliament to which the information commissioner is
answerable.
I would be prepared, in one way or another, to go along with the
hon. member's request for an immediate debate on this issue, for
a motion to be introduced and the issue debated. If that were
to be done, it would pre-empt the emergency debate we had called for
this evening, or the Chair should bear in mind in its ruling
that if it does not allow an immediate debate, we should at
least use the evening to debate the matter pursuant to Standing
Order 52. Whatever is decided the final days of this
government are a sorry spectacle.
1020
As its mandate draws to a close, a matter of days now, our
worst fears and doubts are being confirmed. Our complaints to
the House about the answers being given by ministers about the
unavailability of documents under the Access to Information Act
are being borne out. This is a very serious situation.
For three and a half years, the Bloc Quebecois has had a hard
time because it has been systematically unable—this was how the
privy council wanted things—to obtain any useful documents that
would show the public what was actually going on behind the
scenes in this government.
It is quite terrible that this is happening in a system such as
ours. The control of information is something we thought was
reserved for certain dictatorships, certain totalitarian
countries. The first requirement of a dictatorship is to
control information and release only what it wants.
It is a sad day for this parliament. It is a very sad
conclusion to the government's stay in office.
It is vital that the question of privilege raised by the hon.
member be debated immediately or that you at least allow an
emergency debate on the matter in the coming hours. Otherwise,
we will no longer know what deference to the will of parliament
means.
The spotlight is now on the PMO and the privy council.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of the NDP caucus, I would like to comment on a point
of privilege brought forward by the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, the House leader for the
Conservative Party.
The point of privilege arises out of the tabling of the annual
report of the information commissioner for 1999-2000. I would
just like to remind the House, but more specifically the
government, that Mr. Reid presents his report to the Speaker of
the House. He says:
Dear Mr. Parent:
I have the honour to submit my annual report to Parliament.
This report covers the period from April 1, 1999 to March 31,
2000.
The point I am trying to make here is that this
report and the officer who has made this report is a creature of
parliament and answers to parliament. What we see developing
here in the report of the information commissioner is part of a
larger disease that affects the Canadian body politic, and that
is, the relationship between the government and parliament is not
what it should be. What we have reported here, and which should
be a concern for anyone, especially the Chair who is concerned
with the integrity and the reputation of parliament, is evidence
of what most of us see here every day, and that is that the
government has contempt for the role of parliament and the
democratic process.
In this case, it is contempt for an officer of parliament. In
this case, we see evidence of the systematic attempts to
frustrate the efforts of an officer of this parliament, the
information commissioner, the person who reports to this
parliament, to obtain the kind of information that he is mandated
to obtain under the freedom of information act.
This report comes from someone with extensive experience in
government and who was actually once a Liberal member of
parliament. This would certainly, in fairness, give the lie to
some of the things we sometimes think, that just because someone
has partisan considerations he will never give the government a
hard time. This guy is giving the government a hard time and
properly so, but it points even more so to how bad the government
practices must be in this particular instance.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that you should consider this point of
privilege very favourably. For me it is just one more symptom of
a larger disease, and that is the contempt that this government
has for this House.
I am not pointing fingers at the government House leader.
In many respects, as is too often the case unfortunately, the
people above the government House leader, those people in the
Prime Minister's Office, in the senior bureaucracy and in
treasury board, treat us all with contempt.
1025
It is not a question of government members treating opposition
members with contempt. It is a question of the Prime Minister's
office, that small circle around him, and the senior bureaucracy
treating all of us with contempt, whether we are a government
House leader or an opposition House leader. We have all fallen
into the same basket as far as they are concerned: people whose
will is to be thwarted, whose status is to be diminished and who,
instead of being respected because they are elected, are held to
be the very people that obstruct their will.
Time and time again we see the collective consensus of those in
the senior bureaucracy and in the Prime Minister's office. The
information commissioner has laid bare the reality of this as far
as freedom of information is concerned. It behooves us all,
including you, Mr. Speaker, to seize this opportunity to initiate
a debate on what is a growing problem.
Although points of privilege cannot become election issues, this
frankly is something that the Canadian people ought to take into
account. We have seen another contempt of parliament just today
when people are appointed to cabinet who have never been elected.
It is better to be an unelected friend of the Prime Minister than
an elected member of parliament who the people vote for. Imagine
that. Let us bring in some of the backroom boys.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona says he is trying to be relevant. I hope he
will try a little harder.
We are dealing with a point of privilege raised by the hon. member
for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough which has nothing to do with
cabinet appointments. Perhaps he can stick to the point. I know
he is doing his best.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: What I am trying to point out is a
pattern of contempt. It is just a coincidence that on the very
day we are talking about a report that shows this kind of
contempt for parliament in terms of the government's actions with
respect to the freedom of information commissioner and the work
his department does, we have another example of this in the way
in which the Prime Minister has appointed people to cabinet who
are not at this time elected, some of whom have never been
elected to the federal House of Commons.
I think it is fair ball to try to place this
particular violation of parliamentary privilege, that is to say,
those things the freedom of information commissioner points to,
in the context of the larger contempt which the Prime Minister in
particular has for the House and even for his own members.
The Deputy Speaker: I remind the hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona that we are not yet having a debate on this
subject.
The hon. member is rising on a question of privilege. I hope he
is trying to assist the Chair in coming to a decision as to
whether or not to recognize this as a question of privilege. If
he has remarks along those lines, I would appreciate hearing them
rather than what I think might be a very good speech on a motion,
were there one permitted before the House.
Hon. Jim Peterson: The polls are relevant.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, a member across the way
says the polls are relevant to this debate. That is all the
government thinks about. Nothing else is relevant except the
polls. I suppose if the polls said that the government should
take out a bunch of people and shoot them, the government would
say “Fine, the polls say that is okay. We will just do
whatever”. Instead it is members of the other side who aspire
to be in cabinet who have been politically executed, while others
have been brought in who are not even members of the House.
I know you think this is not relevant, Mr. Speaker, but the point
I am trying to make is that all of us should be concerned about
the respect for this institution. Whenever a government acts in
a way that is disrespectful of democracy and disrespectful of
parliament it is something that the Chair should concern itself
with. This point of privilege is an opportunity to give the
members in the House a further opportunity to speak their minds,
including those government backbenchers who may be embarrassed by
the way they have been passed over and abused by their own Prime
Minister
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, of course there is no question
of privilege here this morning, as the Chair no doubt has already
recognized or, I suspect, as he is about to.
There has been some discussion here as to whether or not the
speaker should recognize an emergency debate under Standing Order
52.
1030
I will acknowledge that it was raised. I certainly do not want
to contribute to that process because that is the Speaker's
decision and only the Speaker's decision. I recognize the
Speaker will do that with the usual wisdom.
Whether one likes or dislikes a report tabled in the House does
not constitute privilege. That is not the case. Whether someone
receives the budget and he or she wants to do his or her function
is not a matter of privilege.
The member from Central Nova said that certain government
departments sought legal counsel when there was a difficulty or a
challenge to the interpretation of law. Surely the learned
member of the House should not be offended by the fact that
people seek legal counsel in the interpretation of laws. It is
certainly not a question of privilege. I do not see how anyone
could even take that allegation seriously.
The House leader for the official opposition said that the
access commissioner did not provide sufficient access to his own
document. That may be interesting as a point but the government
does not distribute the copies of the access to information
commissioner's document. My own colleagues were trying to get
copies of this yesterday and could not get it either.
I was reminded by members across the way that this is an
independent officer of the House. Surely the independent officer
of the House is not going to be dictated to the government as to
how many copies to bring along. That is something to be
discussed between the Speaker and the independent officer in
question, whether it is the auditor general, who will table
documents later today, or whether it is the privacy commissioner
or whether it is some other independent officer.
When independent officers who report to parliament do not
provide sufficient copies of their documents, the Chair will
discuss that with that independent office. It is not something
that the government is in any way responsible for or otherwise.
The mere allegation of that is bordering on the preposterous.
I know someone raised and was quite nervous about the fact that
the Prime Minister made excellent cabinet appointments this
morning. That nervousness was duly noted. I will not comment on
it further other than restating that I do not believe a question
of privilege has been raised today with the Chair.
The Deputy Speaker: I do not know how much longer the
Chair needs to hear members on this point. I must say the Chair
has heard enough to take the matter under advisement at this
time. I will allow brief comments from the three members who
rose.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of points that may
be of assistance to the Speaker. One is the point made in the
report which quoted Justice Gérard La Forest in 1997, a former
Supreme Court of Canada justice. I refer the House to the facing
page of the report which says:
The overarching purpose of access to information legislation...is
to facilitate democracy. It does so in two related ways. It
helps to ensure first, that citizens have the information
required to participate meaningfully in the democratic process,
and, secondly, that politicians and bureaucrats remain
accountable to the citizenry.
I suggest that as members of parliament, as representatives of
the citizenry of the country, we are deeply concerned about
anything that puts a stranglehold on the information required to
participate meaningfully in the democratic process and to do our
job to hold the government accountable to the people of Canada.
This report not only clearly but scathingly points out that the
government is impeding that very important process. I refer to
one quote on page 10, second column, first paragraph of the
report which says “In sum, then, there is a full counter-attack
in progress against the Office of the Information Commissioner”.
1035
We need to take this very seriously. It is not just a matter of
partisanship; it is a matter of fundamental democratic practice
in our country. I urge the Chair to take this matter very
seriously. It is a matter of privilege, not only for every
single member of the House but for every single citizen of this
country. I would ask the Chair to accede to the request of my
colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough to bring this
matter forward on an urgent basis so that it can be dealt with in
a meaningful way, not swept under the carpet by the events that
are taking place elsewhere in the democratic arena.
I would plead with you, Mr. Speaker, to give this matter the
priority that we as members of the House feel it should have.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind you that there was
a question of privilege moved by myself last June that is now
before the House which relates directly to this matter. I
suggested that there was interference with my privileges as an MP
because of certain documents that were presented to cabinet by
the justice department.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you are expected to rule on
this question of privilege very soon. You might consider taking
under advisement the current question of privilege until after we
hear your ruling on my question of privilege. My question of
privilege is very specific and alleged direct interference. If
you find a prima facie case for my question of privilege, I think
there will be ample opportunity for the House to debate the
information commissioner's report in that context.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair appreciates the comments of
all hon. members who made submissions on the point that is before
the House this morning on the question of privilege raised by the
hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
With respect to the distribution of the documents, it is the
Chair's understanding that there was a miscommunication between
the privacy commissioner's office and the Chair in respect of the
time of the tabling of the documents. It is agreed that the
documents were tabled at 11 o'clock and the documents were not
released to members until later. That was clearly the result of
this miscommunication between the two offices and should in no
way reflect on the validity or otherwise of the question of
privilege that has been raised by the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
The Chair will take this matter under advisement and get back to
the House with a ruling in respect of the hon. member's question
as soon as possible.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
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 14 petitions.
* * *
[English]
CLEAN INTERNET ACT
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-507, an act to prevent the use of the Internet
to distribute material that advocates, promotes or incites racial
hatred, violence against women or child pornography.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce this bill
which, as indicated, is a bill to prevent the use of the Internet
to distribute material that advocates, promotes or incites racial
hatred, violence against women or child pornography.
If this legislation is eventually adopted, it will be a giant
step forward in dealing with a social ill that is fast pervading
our country and one that all of us would like to see dealt with
in a way that will make this society a much better place for us
to live in.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1040
WHISTLE BLOWER HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-508, an act respecting the
protection of employees in the public service who make
allegations in good faith respecting wrongdoing in the public
service.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to protect the
members of the public service of Canada who disclose in good
faith reasonably well-founded allegations of wrongdoing in the
public service to a supervisor or to a public body. These could
be reports of waste, fraud, corruption, abuse of authority,
violation of law or threats to public health or safety.
While promoting the dignity and human rights, I believe that
public officers have genuine public trust as evidenced in the
annual report of the Information Commissioner of Canada. The
public interest is served when employees are free to make such
reports without fear of retaliation and discrimination.
Therefore, I am very pleased to introduce, after a lot of hard
work and consultation with many whistle-blowers, my private
member's bill entitled, an act respecting the protection of
employees in the public service who make allegations in good
faith respecting wrongdoing in the public service.
When a public service employee blows the whistle that person
should be protected and not punished. In the U.S.
whistle-blowers are rewarded.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
COMPETITION ACT
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-509, an act to amend the
Competition Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the timing of the recent decision by the
competition tribunal toward Superior Propane, a monopoly of a
product, is cold comfort to farmers and consumers alike. I am
therefore pleased to introduce a bill to amend the Competition
Act with respect to limiting efficiencies defences in merger cases
before the competition tribunal. Using efficiency to obtain
merger approval is unacceptable if the proposed merger would
create a monopoly in the marketplace for the parties involved and
would provide no benefit for consumers.
The bill clarifies the competition tribunal's powers to make or
not to make an order in the case of a merger when gains in
efficiency are expected or when the merger would create or
strengthen a dominant market position.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to be able to present two petitions, both
on the critical issue of health care.
The first petition calls upon the government to implement
legislation for clear labelling of all genetically engineered
seed and foods derived from, processed with, containing or
consisting of genetically engineered organisms before they are
released into any and all commercial markets.
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition pertains to the ongoing concerns of
Canadians for a universal public health care system. The
petitioners call upon the government to immediately act to ensure
health care funding up to 25% immediately and to implement a
national home care program and a national program for
prescription drugs.
[Translation]
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to present two separate petitions. In the first, the
petitioners are calling for an amendment to the Canada Post
Corporation Act so that rural mail carriers may be entitled to
collective bargaining. I am pleased to table this first
petition.
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present four
petitions today pursuant to Standing Order 36.
1045
In the first petition from Kamloops the petitioners point out
their concern about Alberta's bill 11, which they feel opens the
door to for profit hospitals and threatens health care across the
country.
They are asking parliament to take whatever steps are necessary
to stop this American style move to health care and to consider
introducing national programs for home care and prescription
drugs.
HIGHWAYS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present another petition.
The petitioners are concerned about the state of the highway
system across Canada. They urge the Government of Canada to
consider putting some of the revenues raised by the excise tax on
fuel into highway construction in all parts of Canada.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition in which the petitioners
are concerned about our criminal code. They call upon the
Government of Canada to amend the criminal code to prevent
persons convicted of serious crimes from being released from
custody pending the hearing of their appeals except in
exceptional circumstances.
SIKHS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, the fourth petition is from members of the
Sikh temple in Kamloops. They point out the importance of April
13 in their religion. They also point out their contribution to
Canadian society.
More important, they call upon the House to recognize the
importance of the five Ks. These are the kirpan, a sword
representing indomitable spirit; kesa, unshorn hair representing
simple life, saintliness and devotion to God; kara, a steel
bangle worn as a sign of eternity to God; kangah, a wooden comb
worn to represent a clean mind and body; and kacha, short
breeches representing hygienic living.
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to
present a second petition signed by a number of people in my
riding.
These petitioners are calling on the government to do everything
possible to lower the price of gasoline, especially with winter
just around the corner. The increase in the price of gasoline
will make it difficult for many people in my riding and across
the country to make ends meet over the winter, given the very
high price of heating oil, among other things.
* * *
[English]
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]
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER'S REPORT
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair has received notice of a request
for an emergency debate by the hon. member for Roberval.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank you for
recognizing my privilege, my right to speak to this request and
to give my reasons for making it.
I would like to say that you should examine this request in the
light of the question of privilege raised a bit earlier.
Allowing the question of privilege would automatically dispose
of the emergency debate, because there would be a debate today,
which would meet our objectives. If you were to rule the
question of privilege out of order, obviously the matter of an
emergency debate would remain an extremely pressing one.
On page 1 of the information commissioner's annual report, the
hon. Mr. Justice Gérard La Forest, former judge of the supreme
court, says—the words are heavy with meaning—and I quote:
The overarching purpose of access to information
legislation...is to facilitate democracy. It does so in two
related ways.
It helps to ensure first, that citizens have the information
required to participate meaningfully in the democratic process,
and secondly, that politicians and bureaucrats remain
accountable to the citizenry.
Page 2 of this report contains an extract from the Access to
Information Act, subsection 2(1):
2. (1) The purpose of this Act is to extend the present laws of
Canada to provide a right of access to information in records
under the control of a government institution in accordance with
the principles that government information should be available
to the public, that necessary exemptions to the right of access
should be limited and specific and that decisions on the
disclosure of government information should be reviewed
independently of government.
1050
The reason I have requested an emergency debate is that, in the
report submitted to parliament, because the information
commissioner reports to parliament, it says, and I quote very
briefly:
PCO claims now that it may exclude confidences from access
without any obligation to certify to the Commissioner (as it
must—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. This is not an opportunity
to make a speech on the matter raised by the hon. member for
Roberval with respect to the debate this evening. It is merely
a very brief presentation on the urgent nature of the debate.
I would ask the hon. member to restrict his remarks to that
point alone, nothing else.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Just one sentence, which
will satisfy both you and myself. It reads as follows:
The Privy Council Office refuses to accept the clear words of
Parliament giving the Commissioner the powers of a Superior
Court of Record in the conduct of his investigations.
The Privy Council Office is the department of the Prime
Minister. It is questioning the authority of parliament and its
decision to confer upon the commissioner responsible for access
to information the powers to investigate, audit and distribute
documents.
This strikes me as so serious, given the words of Justice La
Forest, that it is an attack on the very essence of democracy by
the department of the Prime Minister. It is not a minor matter,
but rather one which merits an emergency debate this very day.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair has carefully considered the
comments by the hon. member for Roberval, as well as his letter
submitted earlier this morning on the matter.
As the hon. member has indicated, the Chair has already received
a question of privilege from the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and has taken the matter under
advisement.
If the Chair decides it is a true question of privilege, as the
hon. member for Roberval has indicated, there will be an
immediate debate in the House on the motion by the hon. member
for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. It is possible to continue
that debate during regular sitting hours.
In my opinion, it is perhaps not necessary to consider the
matter of an emergency debate this evening, because the Chair
has already taken the matter under advisement. In my opinion,
the request is not in order at this time.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, from what I understand, the
ruling on the point of privilege has not yet been brought down.
Does your response mean that you are maintaining my request
pending a ruling later on? Because a favourable ruling disposes
of my request, while an unfavourable one leaves it active and
fully justified.
I would like to know where we stand exactly.
The Deputy Speaker: Hon. members must wait for the Chair's
ruling on another point of privilege. I must add, however, that
it is standard practice to renew a request for an emergency
debate daily.
Thus, if the Speaker's ruling is not brought down this
afternoon, tomorrow the hon. member can request an emergency
debate on this issue for tomorrow evening.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
AN ACT TO INCORPORATE THE WESTERN CANADA TELEPHONE COMPANY
Hon. Jim Peterson (for the Minister of Industry) moved
that Bill S-26, an act to repeal an act to incorporate the
Western Canada Telephone Company, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
1055
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the purpose of Bill S-26 is to remove from the laws of
Canada obsolete provisions that restrain Telus Communications
from operating throughout Canada.
Bill S-26 is a standard housekeeping bill in many ways. It
would repeal an act to incorporate the Western Canada Telephone
Company, known as the BC Tel act. It thus would remove
restrictions that hinder BC Tel from competing across the
country. These are restrictions only BC Tel faces.
This constraint was put into place in the bad old days of
provincial monopolies. Today it is contrary to the competitive
climate in which the telecommunications industry works in Canada.
The Competition Act, the Telecommunications Act and the Canada
Business Corporations Act will still apply to Telus.
We support the bill because it is consistent with Canadian
Alliance policy that government should foster a healthy economic
environment for the benefit of consumers by pursuing free and
open trade at home and abroad, including eliminating
interprovincial trade barriers.
The telecommunications industry is Canada's fastest growing
industry. According to the Canadian business performance report
revenues grew 50% in this industry between 1998 and 1999. This
is tremendous growth. It is one of the strongest assets in
Canada.
Canadian society is being transformed by the increasing use of
technology. In their homes, businesses and schools Canadians are
embracing technology and the changes it brings. Computer use in
Canada jumped to a 36% national average in 1998 from 29.4% in the
previous year. Governments in Canada at all levels are changing
the way they do business by incorporating this new technology
into their practices. Telecommunications companies provide the
important ramp on to the information highway.
According to the Canadian Bankers Association, between November
1999 and January 2000 in Canada approximately 12.7 million
adults, or 56%, used the Internet. That shows an increase of 13%
since 1997. We can see this is a growing sector. The 43% who
are not currently on the Internet anticipate getting online
within a couple of years. We definitely need the infrastructure
the telecommunications industry provides.
However it is not all good news today. Too many bright Canadian
entrepreneurs have been forced to go to the United States to find
capital for their ideas. Too many Canadian companies have been
forced south or overseas by high taxes. Canada's personal income
burden is the highest in the G-7. It is 21% greater than that of
the United States. High taxes combined with a stagnant standard
of living and an abysmal Canadian currency of a 65 cent dollar
have been leading many individual Canadians to leave our country,
in increasing numbers. It is quite disturbing.
This summer Statistics Canada reported that over 62,000
Canadians left the country this year, enough people to populate a
medium size Canadian city. That is an increase from the 58,000
who left last year. This is accelerating, if anything. We know
the U.S. high tech companies continue to look for people around
the world. That will continue unless we get our house in order
in Canada.
While those people were packing their bags the Liberals were
denying that the brain drain existed. As recently as June the
Prime Minister publicly rejected the notion that Canada was
losing its best and brightest. He insisted that the brain drain
was only a myth being perpetuated by his critics.
This year 65,000 Canadians do not agree with that. The brain
drain problem must be addressed. The Canadian Alliance fair tax
plan would address the main reasons behind the exodus. The
Canadian Alliance would increase income for all Canadian
taxpayers no matter how much they make. We would remove 1.4
million Canadians with the lowest incomes from the tax rolls
entirely. We would encourage investment and savings for
retirement. These measures would encourage Canada's best and
brightest to stay and work here at home.
It takes quite a bit before a Canadian wants to leave this
country. Our friends and families are all here. It is a major
disruption. For the people who have immigrated to Canada over
the years we know it has been a major traumatic experience. These
people did not do it willingly. They were being driven out of
their countries.
In addition to relieving the onerous tax burden, Canada needs a
strategy to compete in the global economy. The Canadian Alliance
would reduce business taxes and build a positive climate for
doing business while ensuring Canada has a skilled workforce and
a modern infrastructure. Part of that infrastructure is
telecommunications.
1100
Investors need confidence that government is getting the
economic fundamentals right, and I would suggest that is not
happening now.
To encourage more high tech investment in Canada's economy, the
Canadian Alliance would lower payroll taxes so that employees
would take home more money and businesses could hire more
employees.
We would cut the capital gains tax on investing, which would
take away obstacles that restrict investment and which would
encourage the economy to prosper. We only need to look at the
situation in Ireland as an example.
We would cut taxes on the high tech industry. The current
system penalizes the new economy. The Canadian Alliance proposes
to tax all types of companies equally.
In this day and age Canadians must be able to access government
information and services online. We would appoint a senior
adviser on technology to oversee a project to ensure that
Canadian citizens could access the Government of Canada online.
We would increase support for Canada's research granting
councils and co-ordinate scientific activities in all government
departments to ensure that science, not politics, prevails.
Canadians should not be left behind in the rush to do business
online. Canadian regulations need to be modernized to reflect
the reality of a new technology.
Bill S-26 is a straightforward piece of legislation which would
allow Telus to compete on a level playing field with other
Canadian telecommunication companies.
In an increasing global market deregulation of this kind is long
overdue. In fact we have quite a bit better legislation and
trade agreements in terms of international trade agreements than
we have here at home because of our interprovincial trade
barriers which restrict Canadians from doing business across
provincial borders. That needs to be addressed. It is long
overdue. I would suggest the government has not made much
progress in that area.
It is time to give Telus the legislative freedom to do business
in Canada. Therefore the Canadian Alliance is supportive of the
bill and will be supporting it at all stages to allow it to go
through the House today.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. My colleague from the opposition just mentioned the
reason for my point of order. I think you would find unanimous
consent in the House to proceed with all stages of the bill
today, including consideration in committee of the whole.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed
with the bill as indicated by the deputy government whip?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes, we have a Minister of
Industry and allow me to offer my congratulations this morning.
I was very pleased that the Alliance Party member for Peace
River expressed himself on the bill. We all heard him speak in
support of the bill. It is really a housekeeping bill as he
clearly stated. On our side we fully appreciate the fact that
there is good co-operation on the bill. He referred, for
example, to the BC Tel act, which was enacted in 1916. We
certainly have to modernize things, and that is what we are
trying to do.
He touched upon some of the most important issues. I will not
go into the nitty-gritty, but through Bill S-26 we are trying not
only to modernize but to create a level playing field so that
telecommunications companies have an opportunity to compete, to
remain strong and to grow. Not only will they offer excellent
service but at the same time will create opportunities for
Canadians locally and abroad.
I thank everyone for co-operating in moving the bill forward. It
is also important to take this opportunity to talk about some
issues with which we are faced today.
The member for Peace River touched upon some very important
points. He talked about technology and how we had moved forward.
I stand here proudly as the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Industry to talk about our connecting Canadians
program and our computers for schools program which put our
country above every other nation. We are probably the most
connected nation in the world, offering high speed Internet and
low cost.
As Canadians we feel very proud of it.
1105
The member raised one very important issue. He talked about how
we had better policy to deal with our international partners than
we do within the provinces. He is right.
The federal government cannot simply stand and say it wants to
do something. Provincial jurisdiction has to be respected. We
have to work with our provincial partners. I know the member
agrees; we have talked about it personally. I am sure he feels
that by working together we will slowly, hopefully, overcome
those barriers as quickly as possible for the good of each
Canadian.
I will touch upon some of his points. He talked about companies
and people moving. In a global economy, in the global village we
live in, there is a lot of mobility. There is a great shortage
of high tech people in Canada because it is one of the fastest
growing industries.
Not too long ago I read an article in the local papers in which
applications had been put out for lab technicians. About 80% of
the individuals who applied were Canadians wanting to come back
to Canada for several reasons: the fact that we have invested in
research and development and that we have made some very positive
steps in the last budget in how we treat, for example, our stock
options in terms of capital gains, which the member for Peace
River so eloquently touched upon.
We know what has clearly been addressed in the budget in terms
of how we address options to motivate people to invest in our
country. That has been happening in a very healthy way. Steps
have been undertaken.
All statisticians and pundits out there, not us, have been
saying that we are going to lead. We have been leading the G-7
in economic growth and in job creation. We were the first to
balance our books and we were the first ones to show a surplus.
Just the other day I read in an article a comment made by Mr.
Klein, the premier of Alberta. He is now basking in the surplus
he has. He is now reinvesting it back into his province, and I
am glad for that. He said Alberta did not want to go back to
1993 or 1994 when it had to make tough decisions. Now he is able
to reinvest in his province and he is able to give out some
bonuses, as did the premier of Ontario, for example. That is
their prerogative.
It is important at this stage to talk about the tough decisions
that we as a government had to make in 1993. We had a growing
deficit after nine years of the Conservatives not being able to
meet one of their budget targets. We had a growing debt that was
out of control. Thanks to the Canadian people we carried out our
commitment and balanced the books. We are lowering the debt
consistently, and now we are in the same position as Mr. Klein,
thank God, to reinvest in our country. Part of that
reinvestment is looking at the high tech sector—
Mr. Charlie Penson: They do not want reinvestment; they
want taxes down.
Mr. John Cannis: I am glad the member for Peace River is
talking about taxes. If we do not have the money, we cannot
support the system, lower the debt and lower the deficit at the
same time. That is voodoo economics. That is skidoo
mathematics.
The government took a very responsible position, headed by the
Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Industry
and the new Minister of Industry. We made those tough decisions
in a compassionate way. Yes, we created a lean government but it
was not a mean government. We went to the people with
commitments and promises we have kept. We are very proud.
The member touched upon payroll contributions. In 1993 they
were pegged at $3.30 per $100. My colleague sits on the industry
committee with me. He is a great participant with whom I have
enjoyed spending time on the committee. They prefer to refer to
payroll contributions as taxes, but as a former employer I call
them contributions, as did the former leader of the Reform Party.
1110
It is on record year after year that payroll contributions have
been going down. Members opposite fail to accept this and ask
why we have revenue. Let us talk about revenue. In 1993 we had
11.4% or 11.6% unemployment. We were having to put money out to
support these people. Today we have over two million people
working who are not taking out of the system but who are paying
into it.
They talk about revenue and economic growth. I stand here
proudly as I look at the Secretary of State for International
Financial Institutions, the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Finance and the minister responsible for northern
development who has invested in the north and created jobs. These
people are working hard to put people to work.
The hon. member talks about tax equality. When I go to the
doctor and I have an ache in my arm, he will start from that
point and work his way. We did everything within our means to
deliver compassion to the nation. I stand proud that the high
tech industry the member talked about is growing by leaps and
bounds.
There has been the creation of 2,000 21st century research
chairs across country. The United States has MITs. Can we
imagine having 2,000 MITs across our country? That is what it is
all about. The government and the Prime Minister chose not to
build monuments for the 21st century. They chose to invest in
the future of the country, our youth, by creating the Canadian
millennium scholarship endowment fund which is preparing our
youth of today for the economy of tomorrow. That is one of the
best investments we have made.
Let me close by saying that we have followed a very balanced
approach. This is reflective of what we are doing by modernizing
legislation permitting Canadian companies to compete locally and
internationally. The member for Peace River referred to
provincial barriers. I am hopeful in the future and with their
co-operation we can move toward working with the provinces to
bring down interprovincial barriers so that we can have mobility.
With our health care system we have sent a very strong statement
to Canadians across the country that the Liberal federal
government is adamant about protecting health care. It will
enforce the Canada Health Act. It has put its money where its
mouth is and we intend to continue in that direction.
In closing let me thank all the parties that co-operated to fast
track Bill S-26 for the good of the country, for the good of
Canadian people and for the good of Canadian companies.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the rather enthusiastic
comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Industry this morning. Normally he is a very quiet individual, a
thoughtful, low key and humble kind of man. Today he is not.
I wondered what would cause my friend to have a different
approach today. Then I remembered that he is a hard working and
determined guy who is dedicated to the Department of Industry.
When he heard the Minister of Industry was leaving, I suspect he
probably thought he would get an appointment, a better job.
What does the Prime Minister do? He reaches out into a
provincial legislature, picks a guy who promised to serve out his
term in Newfoundland and places him as Minister of Industry. Talk
about Machiavellian politics. This has to be a case study in
manipulation and so on.
I assume the enthusiasm of the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Industry is a masking an extreme disappointment that
he has been overlooked and our friend from Newfoundland has been
brought back into cabinet in this eleventh hour cynical move.
However that is the way the world is and there is not much we can
do about it.
1115
In his comments, my friend talked about the government's
restoration of health care funding. What he failed to mention is
that when all of the restoration takes place, it will only lift
the federal contribution to the level it was at in 1994. I want
to tell my friend this is not 1994. It is not 1995, 1996, 1997,
1998 or 1999. It is the year 2000. In other words, to feel
great about this whole thing and to pat himself on the back with
both hands, to say that we have increased funding to the 1994
levels when we know populations have increased, when we know
inflation has increased, is not really that great a contribution.
I will just say to my hon. friend, we are still looking for a
little bit more, but the point is still well taken.
He also mentioned the investment the government has done. I
will be the first to say, yes, in a balanced approach, there have
been very useful investments in the high tech sector. We are a
relatively well connected country, perhaps even, as he says, the
most connected country in the world, but let me also remind my
friend of other investments made. They were not investments in
social housing because the government says that we do not have
any money for social housing, but we do have money for luxury
hotels and resorts and we do have money for golf courses all over
central Canada.
To make the record clear, when my friend says we are investing
in the economy, yes, he is investing in golf courses, hotels and
resorts, but the government has not invested a single cent in
social housing.
An hon. member: That is not true.
Mr. Nelson Riis: That is absolutely true. Since the
government took office in 1993 not a single cent has gone into
social housing in this country. The government has abandoned
that program.
Those members can talk later and explain where I am wrong.
The point is, we have people on Parliament Hill today from the
women's march who are reminding us of this. Every single MP is
being lobbied today. These people are saying “Please put some
money into social housing”. The reality is that the government
has not.
Let us just make it clear. There is government money for golf
courses, hotels and luxury resorts but no money for housing that
is much needed in all parts of the country. I could go on to
identify other sectors as well.
What he did not mention either was the incredible growth of food
banks. Not only have the national chartered banks done very
well, the food bank business is also booming, and that we should
be much ashamed of.
My hon. friend also did not mention the money that has not been
invested in children. While we woke up this morning to come to a
parliament that is about to end, 1.4 million children woke up
this morning living in poverty. The reason they woke up living
in poverty is not that only they are living in poverty but their
parents are living in poverty. Is this not some form of societal
child abuse? For a country as wealthy as Canada to permit, year
after year, hundreds of thousands of children to live in poverty
is a form of societal child abuse. Quite frankly, we should be
ashamed of this record.
Does the government announce any major initiatives in regard to
child poverty? No, but if someone needs money for a golf course
in Atlantic Canada there is money, apparently, and if someone
needs money for a luxury resort, there is money. However there
is not enough financial support to deal with child poverty.
I could go on in regard to a number of issues but we are not
actually supposed to be talking about them.
My friend also mentioned balancing the books. He forgot to
mention that one of the ways in which the government balanced the
books was to take money out of the EI that employers and
employees contributed in anticipation that they were going to get
some return on their insurance investment. The government dipped
into their fund to take out the money and dipped into the pension
fund of the federal public service as well.
It is important that we remind ourselves, in a more balanced
way, of why the books of the country have been balanced. It is
because money put into the employment insurance fund has now been
siphoned off.
I have two quick points. Today we are talking about telephone
services. I think we would all agree that communication is
crucial in a knowledge based economy, crucial today in an ever
shrinking globalized world and absolutely fundamental in terms of
economic development in the future.
1120
As we talk about this legislation, there are parts of Canada
that do not have any telephone service. I know some members will
be surprised to hear this, but there are parts of Canada that
have no telephone service at all. As a matter of fact there are
some parts of my own riding that do not, to be specific, the East
Barrière Lake area and the Red Lake area. There are others. A
lot of people who live there have been trying to get the
telephone companies to provide service but to date they have not
been able to do so.
I want to make that point clear as we are getting ourselves
excited about how connected we are. There are still a lot of
people who do not have even fundamental telephone services.
As we talk about balancing off this sort of equal playing field,
which is what this legislation is all about, and talk about
providing a level playing field for all players, let us also
remind ourselves that as we speak we have the softwood lumber
agreement that the Government of Canada agreed to which prohibits
Canadian lumber exporters from exporting lumber into the United
States. This is up for renewal on March 1. I do hope the
government, if it actually espouses the fundamental belief in
free trade, abandons this forum of managed trade which, quite
frankly, militates against western lumber producers.
I appeal to my Liberal friends across the way. When companies
are making the case that we should have free trade in lumber,
when the members of the IWA say they want to have free trade in
lumber, I appeal to the government to actually agree to have free
trade, particularly as this is free trade with the United States.
I thought we actually had a free trade agreement with the United
States but when it comes to softwood lumber we do not have a free
trade agreement. I find it rather perverse and almost amazing
that we would allow this to occur but we have. Hopefully we can
undo this damage in the next number of weeks.
To get back to Bill S-26, others before me have indicated that
this is actually a pretty straightforward piece of legislation.
It is a bit unusual when one thinks about it. The British
Columbia telephone company special act was enacted back in 1916
by this parliament. The purpose of this special act was to
federally incorporate the British Columbia Telephone Company and
place it under federal jurisdiction. At the time this special
act was created, the Canadian telecommunications industry
consisted of monopoly service providers, including fledgling
provincial crown owned corporations just beginning to be
established in the prairie provinces.
Today this special act is inconsistent with the open and
competitive Canadian telecommunications industry where all other
Canadian owned telecom companies are free to compete in every
Canadian jurisdiction. This places Telus at a competitive
disadvantage for a number of reasons.
Rather than go into those reasons, I think it is obvious that
when one company has to seek permission from the CRTC every time
it wants to make a major corporate decision whereas other
companies it is competing with do not and can simply do it within
their own corporate structure, we are asking Telus to compete in
the marketplace with its hands tied behind its back, so to speak.
In summary, we in the New Democratic Party support the updating
of the legislation. We also support, as we indicated earlier,
the rapid movement of the legislation through all stages so we
can complete it today. It has already gone through the stages at
the Senate, which has done due diligence on this legislation. It
is appropriate that we move expeditiously as well to enable the
legislation to be proclaimed prior to the dissolution of this
parliament.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to state briefly the position of the Bloc Quebecois on Bill
S-26, whose aim is to treat Telus the same as the other
companies. This company is governed by the Act to incorporate
the Western Canada Telephone Company, which dates from 1916.
The objective of this very short bill is to not subject it to a
specific law, but to treat it like the other companies and have
it governed by the Canada Business Corporations Act, which will
enable it to continue its activities throughout Canada on the
same footing as the other companies.
It is not a matter of not governing this company any longer, but
of affording it equal treatment. Accordingly, we will not
debate this at length, since everyone is in agreement to pass
this bill as quickly as possible.
1125
Since this bill does not involve any contentious issues, we will
co-operate in passing it quickly at second reading, at report
stage and at third reading today. We will support Bill S-26.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered
in committee, reported, read the third time and passed)
* * *
[English]
CANADA HEALTH CARE, EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER
SOCIAL SERVICES FUNDING ACT
The House resumed from October 5 consideration of the motion
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.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I really do appreciate the opportunity to speak to this
bill. Over the course of my parliamentary career of three and a
half years, which hopefully will be extended in the next
election, I have had a great interest in this area, both as the
deputy critic for health for the Alliance Party and as the
vice-chairman of the health committee for the House of Commons.
I am usually quite delighted to be able to rise and bring the
concerns of my constituents of the riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan
before the House of Commons, but unfortunately I rise today being
forced into bringing forward their concerns because I do not
think we really need to have this debate in the way that has been
lined up for us.
1130
Canadians know and cherish the health system in Canada. For
many years we have had a made in Canada solution which ensures
that all Canadians have access to quality health care.
Generations of Canadians have grown up expecting that their loved
ones, their families and they themselves would have adequate
health care available to meet their needs.
Thanks to the Liberal government Canadians no longer can be
assured of that. The stark, cold reality is that over the last
few years the health care system of yesterday has been steadily
destroyed by the Liberals of today and will not meet the health
care requirements of tomorrow.
I would like to describe the problems that have resulted from
the Liberal government's uncaring approach to health care. For
the record, I and the other members of the Canadian Alliance will
be supporting the bill. However, let me be perfectly clear on
our measure of support for it. We are supporting it because
finally the Liberals are rectifying past Liberal mistakes that
have needlessly hurt many Canadians in the process, need never
have been implemented, and would not have taken place under a
Canadian Alliance government.
In 1993, when the Liberals came to power, the federal portion of
the Canada health and social transfer was $18.8 billion. Within
four short years the heartless Liberals slashed away more than
$6.3 billion annually. Today the federal Liberals are still $3.3
billion lower than in 1993.
Prior to this bill the Liberals had stripped away $24.7 billion
from the health care system in Canada. Their earlier budget
plans called for the removal of another $9.9 billion over the
next three budget years. Were it not for the pressure of the
official opposition, the provinces and indeed Canadians
themselves, the Liberal government would have gouged an
incredible $34.6 billion out of Canada's health care system over
a projected 11 years. That was what it was intent on doing.
That $34.6 billion represents more than $1,100 less in health
care for every man, woman and child in Canada today. Can we
imagine what another $1,100 of health care spent on every person
in each riding would do to alleviate the pain, suffering and
discomfort many feel?
In my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan there are approximately
100,000 people. That translates, if my math is correct, into 110
million missing health care dollars. That $110 million could
have been used to hire more nurses and maintain and reopen
operating rooms. It could have been used to ensure that more
people were not subject to longer than necessary waiting lists
and to give the opportunity to upgrade or purchase new medical
technology equipment.
Not a region in the country has not been negatively affected by
the callous financial approach the Liberal government has
inflicted upon Canadians from coast to coast. A case in point is
the Cowichan District Hospital in Duncan, in my riding, where a
dialysis unit sat idle. What was the primary reason it sat idle?
Simply put, there was not enough money in the system to hire
trained personnel to operate the equipment.
I ask my hon. colleagues to imagine the concern and the pain in
the hearts of parents whose children require a dialysis machine
to stay alive and who know that because of funding the equipment
in the hospital has never been used. This is not an academic
subject for me. I know that feeling. I have a daughter who
could have been one of those who required dialysis. She has only
one kidney. Even though the dialysis unit was only 15 minutes
from our home, the stark reality was that if her one remaining
kidney had shut down we were over an hour away from the nearest
dialysis unit. For her to use the pediatric dialysis unit we
would have had to take her to Vancouver.
A dialysis unit costs approximately $630,000 to purchase. The
annual operating cost for 36 patients totals approximately $1
million. Let us imagine if a portion of the $110 million the
Liberals have ripped out of the system in my riding alone could
have been used for dialysis in the Cowichan hospital. Then let
us imagine the sense of relief a parent or patient would feel when the
unit was finally opened and put into operation.
Unfortunately this unit is already approaching capacity. It is
expected that in less than one year new dialysis patients will
once again be required to make the one hour trip to Victoria for
the dialysis treatment they require.
1135
In 1991 in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, Mr. Pat Carson
donated $861,000 toward the purchase of a CT scanner. That is
what the health system in the country has come to. There is a
critical need for new technology and modern equipment. The
government does not have the money to pay for it. Individuals
who know of this crying need are coming forward to pay for this
equipment.
Mr. Carson's wife had cancer. Unfortunately she died of it.
While there are no guarantees, it was thought that earlier
treatment for her could have been initiated through a faster
diagnosis by a CT scan.
Hon. members are wondering how well the scanner is now working.
Has it saved lives? I am sad to say that the scanner is still
not in operation. The money has now accumulated to over $1.3
million. Only now, after the promise of more federal money and
nine years after this very generous public donation was made, is
the CT scanner coming online. How many lives would have been
changed or even saved if the CT scanner had been in place years
ago? Simply put, a lack of funds claims lives in our health care
system every day. The Liberal government must accept much of the
blame.
If these were the only stories, the story of health care in
Canada today would not be such a tale of woe. Unfortunately
this is only one of thousands of stories from across the country.
Through the remainder of the day we will hear from others about
surgery waiting lists, cancelled surgeries, long waiting periods
to see specialists, pain, suffering, and even death.
In my home province of British Columbia we have had patients
lying on gurneys in the hallways and in linen closets, if we can
believe that. Cancelled surgeries at the hospitals in my riding
of Nanaimo—Cowichan are a daily occurrence. We can and we must
do better than this. We have done so in the past.
The track record of the Liberal government speaks loud and
clear. In the last few months the health committee has had
meetings and at each opportunity I raised the issue of the
committee studying the overall system of health care in Canada.
What happened when I raised that issue at committee? The Liberal
majority simply said no. During the discussion at the agenda
planning subcommittee one Liberal member actually had the
audacity to state that health care was too big a topic for the
committee to study.
Let us imagine that: Canadian health care is too big for the
House of Commons Standing Committee on Health to study. If the
Standing Committee on Health cannot study the health situation in
Canada, may I ask who should?
A recent report from the Canadian Institute for Health
Information stated:
The number of health professionals from 1988-1997 did not keep
pace with Canada's population growth, resulting in fewer health
professionals per capita in 1997.
Over that 10 year time period “the number of professionals per
10,000 population declined by 1.7%, from 185 to 182”. Based on
these numbers, we are short 9,000 health professionals.
I would further ask hon. members to consider our aging
population. We are all getting older. We cannot reverse that
trend, unfortunately. According to Statistics Canada
demographics in 2001 about 13% of our population will be 65 years
of age or over. By the year 2026, just a few years down the
road, this same age group will rise to 21% of our overall
population. In real numbers this is a rise from 3,945,700 to
7,759,700, almost a complete doubling of this age group.
I remind hon. members that with few exceptions this includes
each and every one of us here. It includes our peers, our
personal friends, our neighbours and many family members. Without
an end to the serious damage inflicted on our health care system
by the Liberal government I am afraid the health care system may
not be available to those of us who may require it the most in
the future.
1140
Although I know some hon. members will scoff at this premise,
let us consider a few facts within the various fields of
professional health care. Currently the Canadian Medical
Association has noted with concern that the number of doctors
leaving Canada is roughly equivalent to the graduating classes of
six medicals schools per year. That amounts to almost 40% of our
medical school graduates. To my mind that is simply
unacceptable.
It now takes half the output of all Canadian medical schools to
replace the physicians who leave the country annually. One
reason is the cost of medical education. The president of the
CMA asserts that the debt of a graduating medical student could
rise as high as $140,000. Other reasons as given by the former
director of research at the Association of Canadian Medical
Colleges of Canada include health care cuts and plunging morale.
Here are some other facts. In 1996, 731 doctors left the
country. In 1997, 659 left. That totals 1,390 doctors in just
over two years. Doctors moving south of the border represent
just a quarter of all medical personnel leaving the country every
year. Most of those leaving are nurses. We are told, and I
believe it to be true, that we face a chronic shortage of nurses.
A 1997 study of 489 orthopedic surgeons graduating between 1985
and 1994 showed that fully 25% have moved to the United States
and 70% of the rest were considering it. The most common reasons
were restrictions on operating time, unavailability of beds and
other frustrations with practice restrictions.
The CMA has also stated that there is a severe shortage of high
tech physicians capable of reading the results the latest medical
technology gives us. There currently is a shortfall of 150 full
time radiologists in Canada, with an expected shortfall of 500
over the next four years.
Let us not forget that it takes a great deal of time to train
the doctors and nurses we need in Canada. Regular training for a
general practitioner takes at least seven years. Specialist
training takes 13 or 14 years. We are short of trained staff
now, not in seven or thirteen years. A crisis looms on the
horizon, and still the government remains intent on destroying
rather than renewing our stressed health care system.
The government claims it is treating the health care system with
compassion. We hear that word from our hon. colleagues across
the way quite often. They say they are a compassionate lot, with
compassion oozing out of their pores. Last month in Montreal the
Prime Minister stated that he had “invested in health care”.
The Minister of Health laid claim to this being a “compassionate
government, leading the way for those among us that require
health care”. The 1997 Liberal red book stated that they
“would not abandon the health care field and that predictable
and financial certainty was essential for our health care
planning”.
Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth if we take a
look at what the government has done. I have been calling for a
serious review of the Canadian health care system for over three
years now. The government has done nothing like that. It has
cut the transfer payments. It has chastised the provinces for
attempting to find real solutions to real health care problems.
It has made federal-provincial relationships completely
untenable, and still it attempts to make the claim that it is
upholding health care in Canada. On the eve of an election in
the country finally it does something about it. Surely Canadian
people can see through that.
I believe the federal Liberal government will be forever
remembered in history as the destroyer of our present health
care system. The facts are indisputable. It has permitted the
rise of two tier health care on its watch, across the country.
The Prime Minister, the Minister of Health and all their minions
can bluster and rant all they want, but the truth is crystal
clear: the Liberal government has failed all Canadians when it
comes to health care. It has permitted, even encouraged, the
failure of the health care system that Canadians have come to
enjoy and count on. Canadians all across the land know it. They
will not forget the Liberal government's actions when the next
election comes.
Canadians are not as gullible as the Prime Minister would like
us to believe. I believe Canadians know where the blame rests
for the unacceptable status of our health care system. It rests
firmly at the feet of both the Prime Minister and Minister of
Health.
1145
Canadians are looking for someone to champion health care.
Canadians are looking for a political entity that will put things
right in this country, beginning with health care itself.
Canadians are realizing that the Liberal health care talk has no
substance, has no meaning and has no depth.
The Liberal government has attempted to make the claim that they
are the only party willing to support the five tenets of the
Canada Health Act.
In 1997 the red book stated that the Liberal “commitment is to
the five fundamental principles of our medicare system and on our
commitment to the continuing role in financing and other aspects
of the federal government in health care”. That is a very noble
statement, but have they lived up to it? When it comes right
down to it, have they attacked this problem at the provincial
level where the delivery of services actually takes place? How
far from the reality of today, when the government is truly the
architect of the demise of the Canada Health Act.
All across this country there are examples of abuses of the
Canada Health Act. If someone hurts a knee on the job and
the Workmen's Compensation Board is paying for it, there is no
problem. That person gets to go to a private clinic and jump ahead of
everyone else waiting for knee surgery. It may be legal but it
is not right, and the government should fix that kind of queue
jumping.
Does anyone need an MRI? There is a three week lineup. If
someone pays $800 cash at a private clinic they will avoid the
lineup. If they do not like the wait time involved they can take
their credit card and head south of the border. There are a lot
of Canadian doctors and nurses there already. Maybe it will seem
like a Canadian reunion.
Has the Liberal government attempted to resolve these issues? I
do not think so. Certainly not while I have been around this
place. Rather than working with the provinces and attempting to
ensure that all Canadians have quality health care, the Prime
Minister and the Minister of Health prefer to antagonize and
cause dissension rather than build unity. Canadians see past
the Liberal smoke and mirror show and they are really tired of
it all.
Canadians are turning to the Canadian Alliance to right the
wrongs that this Liberal government has forced upon all
Canadians. Corrective actions cannot be implemented immediately
but they can begin immediately.
My colleagues and I recognize, of course, that money alone is
not the whole solution to this problem. However, we cannot deny
that many of the problems were caused by the government's
significant reduction in funding, funding that this Liberal
government has simply slashed out of health care among other
things. Many of the solutions will require funding, yet further
efficiencies can be found in the system.
Yes, we need more trained professionals. Yes, we face
challenges that we have not previously encountered. Certainly we
have an aging population. Yes, the delivery of health care
services remains a provincial responsibility. We know all these
things to be true. However, what positive role has the federal
government played in this? To date, none. It has been
irresponsible in its lack of solutions to the health care crisis
that now faces Canada. Many of the problems are systemic and
there has been no plan from the government to attack the systemic
problems in our health care system.
Canadians look to government for leadership. They have not
found it here in this place with this Liberal government as far
as health care is concerned.
We do need changes in the health care system. We need a system
that shows we are truly getting results. We need a system where
governments work together. We need a system that provides
funding on a regular basis consistently over the years working
co-operatively with the provinces. That is what a Canadian
Alliance government offers to Canadians when it comes into
office. What we will do for the health care system is what the
Liberals have failed to do. They have acted irresponsibly.
Putting this kind of money back in at this point will simply be a
band-aid solution to a growing problem.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to stand as the member for Halifax West and speak on
behalf of my constituents to Bill C-45. I should indicate at the
outset that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for
Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys.
Bill C-45 is 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.
1150
The bill came about as a result of the September 11 health deal
that was reached between the federal government and the
provinces. The bill is in two parts. The first part provides
authority to make expenditures into a special $1 billion medical
equipment trust, as well as a $500 million fund for information
technology.
The second part of the bill authorizes an increase in transfer
payments through the Canadian health and social transfer for
social programs which are defined in the Federal-Provincial
Fiscal Arrangements Act as programs in respect of health,
post-secondary education, social assistance and social services,
and early childhood education.
While the September 11 health deal is a step forward, and we
admit that it is a small step forward, it really does not go far
enough. When I say that it does not go far enough, I am not just
giving my opinion on this. I have knocked on well over 1,000
doors within the past few months talking to the constituents of
Halifax West. Many of the people to whom I have spoken have
indicated to me that health care is still the number one issue
for them. They feel that the present agreement of restoring the
kind of funding that has been put back in does not go far enough
to deal with the kinds of concerns and problems they have. They
do not see any immediate relief to the many problems that they
are facing: waiting for needed surgery, long line-ups, trying to
obtain needed medications and so forth. They do not see any
immediate relief to those problems in the deal that was worked
out between the federal government and the provinces.
As an example of this I will tell the story about what happened
at one of the doors that I knocked on. It was on a beautiful day
just last week. The sun was shining and there was beautiful
colour in the leaves in the maritime provinces. It was a nice
day to go around getting to know the people within the riding of
Halifax West. Up until the point when I knocked on that door, I
was feeling pretty good.
After I had knocked on the door, a young man answered. I asked
him if he had any special issues he wanted to discuss that
related to the federal government or its programs. He said
“Yes. Step inside for a minute”. I entered and right off the
bat he started to tell me about his concerns with the health care
system. He introduced me to his wife who was lying there. This
young man was probably no more 30 years of age and his wife was
probably around the same age. When he introduced his wife I saw
this lady lying on a couch and the look of her belied her age.
She looked much older than I knew she was. This was because
the woman was dying of cancer at such a young age.
To hear this young man tell his story about his involvement with
the health care system, about the trials and tribulations that he
has gone through and about his concerns for his wife, just about
brought tears to my eyes.
The interesting thing about this young man's story was that he
was telling me his story not so much because he thought it would
help his wife, as he knew her days were limited, but
in the hope that it might help other people who find
themselves in a situation where they need health care.
These are the kinds of things that we are seeing right across
the country, the kinds of problems that we see coming because of
the short-sightedness of the government in dealing with our
health care system.
I can tell another story, about an elderly woman. She is the
widow of a veteran who served our country proudly. On one
occasion my wife and I visited this lady. We had a wonderful
time having a cup of tea and chatting with her. Not too long ago
I decided to call her up to see how she was doing. She told me
“I am not doing too badly. I just came back from the hospital. I
had been in the hospital for a while but now I need to have
permanent nursing care on a daily basis. I need someone in my
home with me on a daily basis”. Up to that point this lady had
lived by herself in her home, a beautiful home in the Bedford
area along the shore. She said “I do not know what I am going
to do because I cannot afford this kind of care. I wonder if
there is any way I can get any help”.
Since she was the spouse of a veteran I thought I could refer
her to the veterans independence program under which she may
qualify for some assistance. I gave her the name and the phone
number and asked her to call.
I asked her to let me know how she made out. Some time later I
had not heard from her so I gave her a call just to see how
things had worked out. She said “Well, the news is not so good.
Unfortunately, my income is just beyond the threshold at which
they cut people off for such assistance.” That is not a very
high threshold. She then told me that she did not know what she
was going to do. She said that she needed to pay for the service
but that she would probably end up losing her home because she
could not really afford the service.
1155
When we look at Bill C-45 we see that it does not really deal
with the kinds of concerns that Canadians have in the health care
system. It does very little to address an overall plan for
health care, and specifically, there are no initiatives pertaining to
national home care, which is what this lady would benefit from,
and pharmacare, which so many of our seniors are in need of.
When we talk about home care, I must say that even though the
current government has gutted the health system and has not
really put back the amount of money that is required, the amount
of money that is being put back is less that it was in 1994, and
this is the year 2000.
With that kind of gutting of the system, I must take my hat off
to the people who are working in the system day in and day out
with commitment and dedication and working against adverse
circumstances to try to provide health care for their fellow
human beings.
When I think about home care workers, I am honoured to indicate
that Nova Scotia has dedicated this week as Home Support Workers'
Week. Many people are recognizing and expressing their
appreciation to the home care workers who help thousands of Nova
Scotians get the quality of care service that they need in the
comfort of their home and close to their family and friends. Home
support workers are an essential part of the fabric of the health
care in Canada.
As we look to reshape health care in Canada and hopefully
begin to undo the damage wrought by years of health care cuts
administered by Liberal and Conservative governments, we need to
ensure that home care is properly funded, that the workers are
properly supported and paid properly, and that they work in
decent conditions.
The financial support for those needing home care—and I think
of the lady I mentioned—must be made available. Home care
workers offer experienced care, support, compassion and dignity
to people within our communities. They are an integral part of
the health care system, taking a lot of the responsibility and
the weight off much needed hospital beds in today's system.
Those are some of the areas that Bill C-45 does not address.
Those are some of the things that we must give attention to if we
are going to make this health care system one of which we can
continue to be proud.
While the bill is necessary, I guess, in the final analysis, and
while the NDP does support the bill as a step in the right
direction, it is really a small step forward in light of the
giant steps backward taken by the Liberal government. Let me
also make it perfectly clear that we feel the Liberal government
has missed a golden opportunity to present a vision for the
future of medicare and to advance a plan that would preserve and
strengthen universal public health care.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's very eloquent
presentation and I must say that it is probably one of the most
thoughtful presentations I have heard in the House for some time.
I commend him on his thoughtfulness and the thoroughness of his
research.
I will give a speech later in the day so I have some notes here.
There must be a mistake in my notes because I remember that a few
years ago there used to be a 50:50 balance. The federal
government would put in 50% of the funding for health care and
the province would put in 50% of the money. My notes say that
the federal government now has reneged so much that it only
allocates 13% of the total, which means the provinces have to
pick up 80 some per cent and the federal government only picks up
13%.
Would my friend at least tell me my notes are wrong? If in fact
the feds are only giving 13% of health care funding, that would
be absolutely scandalous.
1200
Mr. Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, despite the protestations
I hear from the other side that my hon. colleague's notes are
wrong, my research indicates accordance with his notes that the
federal government is currently down to a low of around 13% in
terms of the health care. It wants to talk about tax points and
other things to try to accommodate that but we know full well
that it falls far short of what is required to provide the kind
of health care, home care and preventive measures which are
so necessary today.
It is one thing to try to put a band-aid on a cut when it is
bleeding and festering. It is another thing to try to get at the
root cause and to prevent the illness in the first place. This
is what adequate funding will do. We are calling upon the
government to provide the kind of funding it used to, which was
at least 50% of the cost of health care, and make a meaningful
contribution to the well-being of our citizens.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I direct my comments to my Liberal friends
sitting across the way. I assume they have been out door
knocking like my friend from Halifax who indicated that he had
been knocking on doors for the past number of weeks. I know I
have and there is one thing that I found out at almost every
door. Those who wanted to talk inevitably talked about health
care and the abysmal state of our system. There were some people
who did not want to talk or they were not at home or they could
not talk.
I would say it is almost in a crisis situation. As a matter of
fact, I suspect there is not a single member of parliament today
who does not know someone personally in his or her family who has
not been confronted with an inadequate health care system in
terms of treatment. I know I certainly have. My parents are
elderly and are sort of struggling all the time. They do not
complain but they have had to wait weeks for tests and weeks to
get into the hospital for a minor operation and so on. That is
what one hears everywhere.
It is absolutely scandalous that the government has somehow
gotten away with not taking responsibility for the problem. It
has blamed it on provincial governments, not to say that they do
not deserve some criticism. However, the reality is that it was
this government that made those massive cuts to our health care
system, which caused this problem from coast to coast to coast.
That is fact number one.
Fact number two, as my friend from Halifax just verified, is
that the federal government was supposed to throw in 50% of the
funding for health care but is now contributing only 13%. That
in itself is scandalous. Let us face it, when it throws in only
13% we can forget about national standards from coast to coast.
Forget about the same quality and standard of health care in
British Columbia as one would find in Prince Edward Island or in
Nova Scotia. That is not the case. We now have virtually 13
different health care systems. There are no serious national
standards because the government puts such a minor amount of the
money into health care that it cannot enforce national standards.
My friends across the way must be shaking in their boots as
people are finding out what is happening in Alberta. There are
50 private health care clinics in the province of Alberta. Bill
11 opens the door now for an American style, two tier, for profit
health care system. If we ask any real health care providers or
any serious students of health care what they think, they will say
that we are opening the door to a two tier for profit American
style health care system, which is not what Canadians want. I do
not think I have ever encountered a single Canadian who says he
or she wants to be like the Americans when it comes to our health
care system.
Perhaps, as my hon. friend reminds me, there are some parties in
the House that feel comfortable with an American style health
care system, but Canadians do not. People ought not to make
profits on sickness, injury and suffering. That is what
a private health care system does.
My friend who spoke just said that Bill C-45 was a small, baby
step in the right direction. However, I would not say it is a
baby step. This is more like a nudge forward. We have so much
more to do. The government for the last two elections has
promised Canadians a home care system. Do we have a one today?
No, we have not.
For the last two elections the Liberals promised a pharmacare
program for Canada. Do we have a one? No, we do not.
1205
The government goes to the electorate and says that if it elects
the Liberals it will give the people a child care system but they
do not do it. The next time they say that if the people elect
them they will give them a home care system, but they do not do
it. Or they say that if they elect them they will give them a
pharmacare system, but they do not do it.
Canadians will eventually figure out that this is a group of
folks they might want to be cautious of when they say that
they will do this or that for them while really meaning they will
do it to them. We will not have a child care system, a home care
system, a pharmacare system or an elder care system. I hate
to say it but unfortunately that is the reality. I wish I could
say something different. I wish I could say that the government
has provided health care and home care and so on, but I cannot.
Have members ever seen people trying to clap themselves on their
backs using both hands and both feet? That would be quite a
sight. That is what we have seen. We have seen people clapping
themselves on the back and saying “Look how wonderful we are. We
have restored funding”. That is not the case. The government
has not restored proper funding for health care. It has restored
funding to 1994 levels. The Liberals should wake up.
This is not 1994. This is the year 2000. They have increased
the funding to 1994 levels, which is a nice step, but what
about 1995 levels? Populations were increasing and inflation was
increasing. What about 1996? What about 1997? What about 1998?
What about 1999? What about the year 2000?
Are we supposed to get excited that the government has dipped
into the EI fund and into the federal pension fund to come up
with moneys so it can increase federal health care spending to
1994 levels? Are we supposed to be cheering? Yet that is what
we are expected to do, cheer. We are not cheering, nor will we
cheer. We will say not only is it not enough money, but we have
to look at the components of health care.
I think members would agree that we have to have a decent home
care system in our country. We are an aging population. How
many householders do we know of who do not have to be concerned
about caring for an aging member of their family? Home care is a
reality. To have a health care system in the 21st century
without a home care component is just not possible.
We know the price of drugs. We know that the price of
pharmaceuticals has been skyrocketing, particularly after the
Mulroney government brought in protection for the drug companies,
unfortunately supported by this government. We cannot help that.
That is what we have. We need a pharmacare program because we
know that seniors by the tens of thousands cannot afford the
necessary prescription drugs which they require because we do not
have a pharmacare program. We cannot have a modern 21st century
health care program without having a pharmacare component in
there.
We talk about elder care and child care. I know this is not
necessarily part of this discussion. However, when we look at
modern countries around the world, do they not have a national
child care program? Of course they have. Do they not have a
national home care program? Of course they have. If these
countries can afford it, why on earth can we not afford it? We
have these huge surpluses.
I know we have money to spend to build luxury holiday resorts.
We have money to spend on building huge fantastic golf courses.
As a matter of fact, I golfed on one this summer. I did not
realize it was subsidized by the federal government and by the
taxpayers of Canada. We have money for golf courses and luxury
resorts but we do not have money for home care.
We heard a lot about the values of our society. The Prime
Minister said that this would be an election about values. I
hope it is. I think Canadians from coast to coast to coast will
also hope that it is. What does it tell us about the values of a
government that says it has money for luxury resorts, for golf
courses and for fancy statues and fountains in the Prime
Minister's riding but cannot afford health care in terms of
home care, pharmacare, elder care and child care? It cannot
afford these. It cannot even afford social housing.
I want to say that the Prime Minister lives in social housing.
The Governor General of Canada lives in social housing. The
Leader of the Opposition lives in social housing.
1210
If we can afford social housing for the Leader of the Opposition
and for the Prime Minister of Canada, we should have some social
housing for people who actually cannot afford decent housing. It
seems reasonable to me.
We have to start thinking about what kind of a country we want.
Mr. Trudeau called this a just society and our goals should be a
just society. The New Democratic Party supports this. We like
the idea of a just society so that if we are sick or injured, it
does not matter where we happen to be in Canada, we will have
access to the top quality care. That is not the case today.
I appeal to my Liberal colleagues to be generous. We have a
huge surplus of perhaps $20 billion before us. Invest some of
that money in home care, in pharmacare, in elder care and in
preventive care so that we can build the health care system of
the 21st century that Canadians want, one that we can afford
if we have the will to do it.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in today's debate on Bill
C-45.
I am not sure how to begin. We are obviously not going to deny
the health care system more money because it needs it. There is
no question that this is a cynical move on the part of the
government on the eve of an election. That is really what drove
the government to the bargaining table with the provinces, so it
came up with a deathbed reprieve and put money into health care,
money which it took out of the system over the last seven years
after it came into office in 1993.
We heard on many occasions this morning about the dollars that
the government has taken out. If we look at this, it has taken
$24 billion out of the system. It projected taking out another
$9 billion but was forced to back down on that. If the Liberals
had their way, they would have taken at least $35 billion out of
the system.
The money they are putting back into the system will bring us
back to 1994 levels once the full value of the package kicks in.
However, we are going to be waiting a number of years before we
get there. Actually, by the year 2004, we will be back to the levels
of spending of 10 years ago. It does not make sense but that has
been the government's cynical approach to governing over the last
number of years.
Now, on the eve of an election, the Liberals are suddenly wanting
to rush this bill through the House. They are attempting to
marginalize this place because the agreement was struck between
the Prime Minister and the provinces. The House of Commons and
parliament were not consulted on the best way to approach this.
Now we are stuck again with a deathbed reprieve. That is what
they are asking for.
This may be somewhat cynical but it will be 18 months before the
payments actually kick in. It is not going to immediately repair
the damage that they have inflicted on the system in the last
seven years. The first amount of money comes in 18 months. It
will not affect the lineups at the emergency wards during flu
season. In fact, that might be one of the reasons the government
members want to go to the polls early. They do not want to go
through another winter of lineups at the emergency ward.
It is not going to stop the trips or the busing of Canadian
citizens to the United States to receive cancer treatments. In
my home province of New Brunswick we are taking cancer patients
down to Bangor, Maine, for treatment because our system has been
denied funding for the last seven years. We cannot afford to
treat our own patients, so at a higher price per patient we are
now shipping them to the United States. Does that make sense?
Of course it does not, because basically they do not have a plan.
They do not have a vision. They are devoid of ideas. “No ideas,
no votes” should be the slogan in the next election.
1215
The premier of New Brunswick put it best. Our share as a small
province is about the same as that of Nova Scotia, I might add.
It would be in the order of $16 million once the money kicks in.
That would keep the system in New Brunswick running for all of 12
days once it gets its full share of the money. There are 365
days in a year so there is a big shortfall.
The health minister in New Brunswick expressed it another way.
The moneys that would come to the province of New Brunswick, if
it wanted to use them on a day to day basis would keep the system
running 12 days. That is another way of putting it. The health
minister, Mr. Furlong, said that money would pay off existing
health corporation debt, debt that has been racked up over the
years simply because of the money shortage and because of the
lack of commitment by the federal government to fund health care.
That responsibility rests at the doorstep of the Prime Minister.
In the last election, with the same kind of deathbed
reprieve, he asked for forgiveness for taking a wrecking ball to health
care. On the eve of the election he pumped a few billion dollars
back into it to resurrect his political fortunes. Fortunately
for the Prime Minister it worked. Unfortunately for the Canadian
people it worked, because now we are victims of the same cynical
process.
We only have to go back to the election of 1993 and the election
of 1997. Let us remember red book one and red book two. I
suppose we could call them fairy tale one and fairy tale two. I
could quote from either one of the documents to make my point. In
both those documents the present government made a commitment to
health care. In two successive elections it reneged on that
promise, not to mention its promise on the GST. We will forget
about that one because that is another argument.
The revenues from the GST are making the government look pretty
good today in terms of balancing the books and eliminating the
deficit. Automatically we could extract $30 billion from the
equation today as we stand in this place because of the revenues
coming in from that hated tax, the tax the government was to axe
when it got into office. It is seven years and waiting and we
still have it.
If we take a look at the OECD report in terms of world economy
and how Canada is faring, it credits the GST and the free trade
agreement as the engines of the Canadian economy, the structural
changes that we made along with deregulation and privatization to
get the Canadian economy rolling. What do the Liberals do? They
pick on the most vulnerable in society: the sick, the poor and
the elderly. I could add the unemployed. They use the same
technique of heavy handedness on the most vulnerable of all
workers, our seasonal workers.
It was only a fight that we waged in this little corner
of the House of Commons that forced them to back down. They took
a position they could not sustain, especially on the eve of an
election.
If this were six months after an election they would roll in for
another three years or so. The plan of the Liberals is that they
do not go to the people every four or five years. They go in
three and a half years. They do not wait for the constitutional
period a government is allowed. They go because of political
expediency. They go because they are high in the polls. They
are not going because their agenda has been filled or their red
book promises have been fulfilled. They forget about red book
one and red book two.
They go on the trash heap of all trash heaps in terms of
political promises.
1220
This is like a crazy glue, Scotch tape approach to government.
We can see them pasting together a platform that might work with
the aid of crazy glue and Scotch tape. I hate to use the words
Scotch tape in reference to the Liberals. I guess it is
derogatory used in that sense. Their approach to government is
basically ad hoc. They make it up as they go along, with no plan
for the future.
There is no plan in the health bill. The plan is to get
re-elected to impose the same kinds of draconian cuts. There are
no guarantees in the bill that they will not do it six months
after an election. How did they get away with it? They forced
the provinces into a room and said either take the money or there
is no money. This was the deal or no deal.
The Prime Minister basically asked how they would go back home
and deny their people that money. That is old fashioned
blackmail. That is what the government is used to. It got away
with it for seven years. This will be the third election in
seven years, with no other reason than political expediency for
calling an election. The government's commitments to the
Canadian people have yet to be filled.
They went back to trash heap and resurrected red book two from
1997. Where are the commitments to health care in terms of
delivery of a home care program and a pharmaceutical program?
They are lost somewhere out there in great Liberal propaganda
land, nowhere to be seen. The government is hoping that
Canadians will forget about it, but we will not forget about it.
We will remind them exactly what the government has done or in
this case not done on the health care file.
There is nothing there to be proud of. The premiers wrapped
their arms around this in Ottawa at 24 Sussex. It is pretty hard
to deny the Prime Minister on his turf. He would probably kick
them out on the street if they did. The premiers went home and
sobered up. I am saying that in a sincere sense. After having a
chance to go through the document, every one of them said the
document came up short of the mark. The Canadian Medical
Association said it was $17 billion short of the mark. The
government will continue on the same track if it is given the
mandate. That should be a sobering thought for Canadians.
There is an old expression that there is nothing like a lynching
in the morning to sober the mind. I am saying that is what the
government will get because it is looking at a huge ocean of
support, a mile wide, but unfortunately for it only about an inch
deep. It will evaporate on the first day of the campaign. It
will be a downhill trail for the government.
A few years ago David Peterson in Ontario suddenly called an
election for no reason other than the fact that he was popular in
the polls. The same thing will happen this time.
This is how the preamble should read to Bill C-45, because we
are talking about fairy tales one and two. In other words, red
book one is fairy tales edition one and red book two is fairy
tales edition two. We are anxiously awaiting fairy tales three
or a rerun of one or two. The preamble to red book three, if
there is one, should go something like this: Once upon a time,
long ago in a land far away, the benevolent king bestowed upon
his et cetera.
It is a fairy tale in the making. It is not real. I guess the
Liberal philosophy is, if it worked once we will do it again, if
it worked twice we will do it again, but three times and the jig
is up.
The Liberals have no credibility on that file.
1225
Let us talk about balancing the books. I see, the Secretary of
State for International Financial Institutions here. He loves
to get up, button his suit and boast about their financial
record, conveniently forgetting that he stood on this side of the
House and raged against the GST.
In a moment of weakness not too many months ago that same
minister admitted we could not eliminate the GST and that some of
their financial success was due to revenues generated by that
instrument. I see the minister clapping. I appreciate that. It
has taken him seven years to publicly acknowledge that in the
House of Commons. I welcome questions from the minister as well.
Nurses have taken an awful pounding from the government, as have
doctors. The government forgets about the commitment of
Canadians to preserving health care: the nurses and doctors, the
people cleaning hospitals, the instrument technicians and the
people who work in cafeterias. Every one of them, from the top to
the bottom, has been a victim of the government.
It will happen again. In addition to the five principles of the
health care act, universality, portability, accessibility, et
cetera, we are suggesting that we need the sixth principle of
secure, defendable, dependable funding so that governments have a
chance to plan.
A government cannot give everything to everybody all the time,
but most Canadians deserve a road map, a plan of where the
government is going, which would allow hospital corporations and
provinces to budget and lay out plans that would be workable in a
five to ten year period. We know what spending costs are doing
in the health care field. Statistically we can forecast what the
cost will be down the road in a number of years.
I am reading from a document of June 2000 that talks about the
cost drivers. It predicts that annual provincial health care
costs will rise to at least $85 billion in 10 years from the $54
billion of today. That is just on the health care side
provincially. It also says that the long range outlook is even
more stark. Provincial health care costs could rise by 247% in
the next quarter century to $186 billion from today's $54
billion. Those are real numbers.
The government must acknowledge the fact that we are getting a
deal on health care. We have a system that includes everyone.
Every one of us is entitled to the publicly funded health care
system.
In the United States the system is driven by litigation and
private corporations, insurance companies being one of them, not
to mention medical corporations or HBOs. Some 40% of all
Americans are left out of their health care system because it is
not publicly funded. A majority of the other 60% is getting
services below a standard that would be acceptable, simply
because it is driven by the private sector.
We do not want to see that type of system in Canada. The fact
is that the Americans, as a percentage of GDP, pay more for a
system that is completely broken than we pay in Canada. In GDP
terms in the U.S. it is just slightly under 15%.
In Canada we are slightly under 10%, more in the order of 9%.
1230
It is a deal but it does not come without a cost. We
acknowledge that, but we must have a commitment from the
Government of Canada stating that, yes, it will have sustained
funding and it will make sure the system works, and no, it will
not subject people to the next round of budget cuts as has been
done in the past.
There is nothing in this package, Bill C-45, that gives us any
sense of relief or satisfaction that the Government of Canada has
learned its lesson and that stable funding will be there. At the
whim of the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance acting on
behalf of the Prime Minister and cabinet, the government could
actually come in six weeks after the election and take a scalpel
to health care again.
The principle we are standing by is the sixth one, sustained
dependable funding, and adding it to the health care package or
the five principles of health care so that there is a road map, a
business plan. No one can run a business without a plan except
the Government of Canada.
As I said originally in this debate, there are no ideas. The
government is devoid of all ideas. There is no plan for the
future. I think the Liberals' campaign slogan in this election
should be “No ideas, no votes”. I would accept that.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened intently
to the hon. member's comments on this piece of legislation. He
was talking about fairy tales earlier, and I was thinking about
why we had budget cuts in the first place. It seems to me it was
a government that the member's party was part of that brought us
to a $40 billion annual deficit. That deficit, I very well
remember, endangered not just the simple health of every Canadian
in this country but the financial integrity of this country. It
was this Liberal government that took up the cause to eradicate
that problem.
An hon. member: Thirty-two billion dollars of that debt
belonged to Pierre Trudeau.
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Yes, there were some changes made,
some unfortunate changes, and health care was one of them. Now
we are happy to say that our financial house is back in order,
that we in fact have surpluses and that we are able to share them
with the provinces in this manner.
We must keep focused about just who administers the health care
system. Canada has the fourth highest per capita spending on
health care in the world. The member would say that we should
spend more. That is not the answer because people are saying at
the same time that we rate 18th in service delivery. That tells
us a whole story, not of the federal government but of the
provinces and territories that are responsible for administering
the health care system.
That is why this legislation includes an accountability
framework. It requires provinces to meet certain accountability
targets, like how much money we are going to be spending in new
technologies and buying MRIs, like how long the waiting lists are
going to be and how we are making progress to improve health care
for average Canadians. That is what this legislation is all
about. The fairy tales the member was talking about were in his
speech.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, not that I have to, but I
would be willing to table the fairy tales, edition one and
edition two, if the member would like to have them just as a
reminder of what those members have said.
The member was not in the House in the eighties. Not once
between 1988 and 1993 did the Liberals, including the Secretary
of State responsible for International Financial Institutions,
who is sitting in the House right now, or the finance minister,
for that matter, ever stand up in the House and vote for anything
that would reduce either the size or the cost of government,
never.
When the Liberals left office in 1984 they bragged that they
left the cupboard bare. They said that they had left the country
in such financial destitution that the Conservative government
could never recover and would never get re-elected. Surprise, we
did.
Basically they are reaping the rewards for a lot of tough things
we did, things we had to do and were forced to do.
1235
However, when they resort to hitting the most vulnerable in our
society, the sick, the poor and the elderly, simply to balance
their books, there is something wrong. There is something wrong
when they have a $40 billion surplus in the EI fund which they
want to use to pay down debt to balance the books. When the
mini-budget comes out we can rest assured that they are going to
lay down a lot of cash on the national debt right on the backs of
the poor, the working poor, the sick and the elderly. The
transfer of funds into health care, education and welfare has
been decimated by the government and by no one else.
That is the sad legacy on which the Liberals are going to have
to run the election. It is a record that I would not be
particularly proud of. I do not think they are going to be able
to stagger around too many parts of Canada promoting it.
Their latest hero to come on the scene is Captain Canada, all
the way from Newfoundland. Perhaps we should call him Captain
Kangaroo because he stood up in this kangaroo court called
parliament and voted for these draconian cuts to health care that
almost decimated his own province. He went back home and almost
admitted the same, saying “I can go back home and fight as
premier for this province and restore health funding”. He is
the very man who stood up in the House and took it away. That is
the phony of all phonys.
He is coming back now to save Canada. He is saving Canada only
because the Prime Minister wants to keep Paul Martin off his
back. It is a political game that even the Liberal caucus
understands. Putting a man like that into cabinet—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): As the hon. member
for New Brunswick Southwest is well aware, we do not refer to
each other except through our office. I understand there are
other members wishing to get a question in edgewise.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see
that the member from New Brunswick can read. He was giving us
the Canadian Alliance platform just a minute ago.
What is the platform of the party he represents? None of us
have seen anything in writing to this point.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is
accusing me of not reading, but obviously she was not listening.
One of the cornerstones of our platform will be the sixth
principle of the Canada Health Act: secure funding so that
provinces, even Alberta, even B.C., will know where they are down
the road, so that they can plan.
Running a government or a country is no different from running
one's own family or business. Mr. Speaker, you have been in
business. You have a number of businesses on the go now, I
think. You are an entrepreneur. You take risks. You do not get
out of bed in the morning without some kind of plan as to
where you are going or how you are going to do it. People must
have a plan no matter how successful their business, no matter if
the cash is flowing in by the barrel or the truckload. Mr.
Speaker, you must have a plan for how you are going to reinvest
or for where you are going. You just do not simply hand out
money and think that it is going to work.
That is what the government is doing in this case. A deathbed
reprieve is what it is looking for. “Here is the cash, do not
get in my way, there is an election coming” is exactly what the
Prime Minister is saying. He is saying “Just get lost, here is
the money, do not make a peep. We can change it all tomorrow,
but we are getting ready for an election and we do not want to
talk about it. Take the money and run”. That is exactly what
the government is doing.
I have a feeling that it is not going to work. Canadians are a
bit too smart for that. As I said earlier, the Canadian people
were duped once by red book one, twice by red book two, and the
cut, paste and crazy glue approach to red book three is not going
to work.
1240
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I do not think we need to debate in the House the record
of the Mulroney Conservatives and the role they played in
diminishing transfer payments to the point where in fact cash for
health care would have completely dried up as we speak.
What we do need to address are the comments by the Liberal
member in this debate that defend a deal which in fact does
nothing more than put back the cash transfers the government took
out in 1995. It does not even ensure that those moneys flow
immediately. It makes provision for some money to flow a year
from now. It does not even increase the base from which to build
for the future.
The real issue here is how anyone can justify a government
maintaining federal funding at a low rate of 13% despite being in
this surplus position.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is
usually kind except when she gets onto this. How can I express
this in a generous way? The point is, I take exception to some
of what she said, but in terms of the government and their track
record on this issue I could not agree more with her.
In all seriousness, the Canadian people are becoming just a
little bit cynical about a government running by the seat of its
pants. It will come down to ideas and a commitment to doing the
job the way it has to be done in civilized society.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: New ideas.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Yes, with some new ideas, ideas that
will to challenge us, where the government meets the challenges
head on.
These people have never spent any political capital on ideas,
have they?
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Greg Thompson: None. The government is basically
running by the seat of its pants on seeds sown and work done by
previous administrations, including, to give him credit, some of
the work done by Mr. Trudeau. It is just running on the past,
devoid of ideas, because when we go out and do something new and
challenging, it means that we are going to lose some popularity,
that we are going to spend some of our political capital. These
people could never be accused of spending political capital.
These people are always the cynical sort, where it is “make it
up, write the cheque”.
To conclude, this is a cheque book approach to governing. These
people are taking out the cheque book to plug every hole in the
dike.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I really am at a loss as to where to
start. There have been many interesting comments and a sharing
of ideas, and even a borrowing of ideas from one party to the
other.
Where we have to start is to talk about the reality. We have
parties who claim that the health care system is the best in the
world, that Canada's publicly funded health care system is next
to none. I think we need a reality check. We have this
perception in Canada that the Canada Health Act and medicare is a
universal plan. That is just not so.
To me universality means that every Canadian is treated in the
same manner with regard to health care. This is just not so.
There are individuals in the province of British Columbia who
have no health care. They are in arrears with their health care
premiums and have people from collection agencies after them to
collect the health care premiums before they receive medical
services.
A lot of people in the rest of Canada are not aware that there
are two provinces where the citizens actually have to pay out of
their pockets on a monthly basis in order to receive health care
services. If they do not pay those premiums they do not receive
the services. If they do not have health care insurance because
they do not pay for it, they have to pay cash to see a medical
doctor. In Ontario and in Saskatchewan that is not the case, but
in B.C. and in Alberta if people have not paid their health care
premiums they are not covered under medicare.
Some will say that does not happen, but I will tell them about
this young lad whose name is Tim Jeffries.
When he showed up at a local hospital with a shattered ankle he
was put into the operating room for corrective surgery. Then,
when they found out his health care premiums were in arrears,
they removed him from the hospital room. They did not do the
surgery until his mother had paid the health care premiums owed.
That is not universality.
1245
It is not universality when individuals in B.C. can be taken off
operating tables because they have not paid premiums but
individuals in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Atlantic Canada
and Quebec can get the service without paying a cent out of their
pockets. People in B.C. have credit agencies after them. People
in Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada do not.
Another thing we talk about is a health care medical services
plan that it is portable: no matter what province one is in, one
can go to another province and receive medical services.
Portability, a key part of our medical system, does not exist
either.
An individual from my constituency who needs dialysis was
planning a trip to Ottawa to visit his son. There was no room in
the public system for Mr. Rushworth to receive dialysis. He
would have to go to a private clinic. Because of the difference
between the cost of the dialysis and what the province of B.C.
would pay, it would have cost him $1,400 out of his own pocket to
be able to visit his son in Ontario. Portability does not exist.
Canadians have misconceptions about our health care system. I
do not have to tell anybody about accessibility. I had a
conversation with my florist while ordering some flowers. He was
over in Britain when it was discovered he had a life threatening
aneurysm. He waited seven months for the surgery to repair it.
This was a life threatening condition.
Is it accessibility to have to wait 12 months, 18 months, two
years or whatever it takes to have hip or knee replacement
surgery? Accessibility does not exist.
We talk about the system south of the border and just how awful
it is. I have contacts in the United States who run a public
hospital system there. I know them very well. When I told them
about the young man who was pulled off the operating table they
were horrified. They said, perhaps for lawsuit reasons, they
would never have taken anybody off an operating table.
We have a situation where the health care system Canadians think
is there for them is not. Why is it not there for them? The
numbers tell the story. In 1993-94 the federal government
transferred to the provinces through Canada health and social and
education transfers a total of $18.8 billion over a period of
seven years. It actually was budgeted for a decrease to $11.5
billion, but a few years ago the Liberal government realized the
crisis it had created and reversed that. The bottom end figure
is $12.5 billion.
That $6.3 billion was taken directly out of cash transfers to
the provinces to provide health care services to the people of
Canada. With these numbers there is no question that the federal
government, through the cuts to transfers to the provinces to
provide health care services, is solely responsible for the
crisis in our health care system.
I would like to address some of the comments being made by both
the Liberal government and the New Democratic Party that Canadian
Alliance wants to support a two tier health care system. It is
just not true.
We have always supported public health care for Canadians that
delivers what it promises to deliver in a system that works.
However, we are not naive enough to think that we now have a one
tier health care system. Anybody who has had to make use of
Canada's health care system knows it is a multi-tier system. Let
us not even talk two tier.
1250
I want to address something of interest. The New Democratic
Party in my province of British Columbia has kept up the fallacy
that we have a one tier system. It is also hypocritical to the
point where, in conjunction with the federal government, the
province of B.C. helps fund a private clinic in China. It is a
private clinic for only those who can afford to go there. It is
funded by the federal government and the province of B.C.
Another hypocrisy involves an individual by the name of Robert
James Mason. It was not his fault. He needed surgery
immediately. It was not a situation in which he could afford to
wait. In our health care system everyone has to wait. Lo and
behold if we did not have a union supporting his desire to have
the government of British Columbia send him down to the United
States, that hated country south of the border, to get the health
care he needed. He could get it immediately there. He could get
good health care.
The New Democratic Party, which is always ragging on the American
system or anybody who says that their health care system is
actually delivering good health care in a timely fashion,
supported one of its union members going to the United States for
service. There is a bit of irony in that and a bit of hypocrisy.
It does not stop there. We cannot use the private clinics in
Vancouver or in our country if we pay with public dollars.
However, the New Democratic Party in B.C. can. The cabinet uses
it in B.C. The Workers' Compensation Board and the union use it
in B.C. Why can some people make use of these private clinics
and get quick treatment when they need it when others have to
wait for 15 months or 18 months to get the services?
We have a multi-tier system. For people in the New Democratic
Party and the Liberals to pretend that it is not so will not help
solve the problem.
A number of things are necessary. First, we have to change our
attitudes. The federal government has to stop blaming everybody
else and assume responsibility. When the Liberal government in
1967-68 brought in health care it made a promise to the provinces
that it would fund it at 50%. It made that promise to get the
provinces to come into the Canada Health Act. What is the
current percentage of funding? It will be 13%. After promising
50% funding it delivered something much less.
Why should Canadians believe the government that lives and
breathes stories about the health system that are not true? Why
should Canadians believe the government that made promises it
cannot and will not deliver? Why should Canadians believe in the
end run it will deliver on the promises it is making today
through this legislation?
Why should Canadians believe the government will not, when it
suits its purposes, once more cut funding in transfers to the
provinces?
1255
The government seems to think this is a time for photo op
politics. With a federal election looming it gives the money to
the provinces and is the saviour of health care. The real story
is that the government took the money out of health care. It
created the crisis. It is responsible. All it is doing is
putting back in some of the money it took out in the first place.
What would stop the government, should it unfortunately be
re-elected, from doing that again?
Priorities are funny things. The government claims the delivery
of health care services to Canadians is a priority. Let me talk
about the government's priorities. Many of us have seen the
television ads about how wonderful the federal government is for
putting back into the system some of the money it took out. That
advertising cost $8 million. Believe me, $8 million could do an
awful lot to put the necessary technological equipment into our
health care system. That money could do an awful lot to create
more training and educational positions in our universities and
to help replace the doctors and nurses leaving our country.
The government spent $8 million to tell Canadians how wonderful
it is. If that is not photo op politics, if that is not buying
votes for an election, I do not know what is. It certainly is a
case of misplaced priorities.
What is needed? Money is needed, but more than that we need new
ideas. We need to encourage provinces to come up with new and
innovative ways to deliver good health care that will be there
for the people. Our concern should not be whether health care is
here today or tomorrow but whether it will be here 10 and 20
years from now for our children and grandchildren.
What needs to be included in the Canada Health Act, and what
should have been there in the first place, is a legislative
commitment that the federal government will not renege on its
funding commitment. The Canada Health Act needs the addition of
long term funding from the federal government to the provinces.
That way the provinces can plan and design a system that will
work in the future.
We need ideas and plans from the federal government. The
Minister of Finance has loosened up his pocketbook and provided
an additional sum of money but it is not what is needed. The
Canadian Medical Association has said an additional $10.5 billion
is needed. This is only a drop in the bucket of what will be
needed.
The point is that we need more than money. The finance minister
has given us some more money for our health care system, but what
new plans and ideas has the Minister of Health given us? None.
What good is putting money into a system as broken as ours
without some idea of how we are to allocate the funds or make
sure the deficiencies in the system are corrected?
Other speakers have mentioned our shortage of doctors and nurses
and our obsolete equipment. We need the new technologies out
there that can be used for diagnostic purposes. Those kinds of
investments can probably save dollars in the future. That is
what we need. We need some assurance that the money that goes
into the system will be appropriated in the right places to
actually make a difference. We need to encourage the doctors and
nurses who have left our country to return to Canada and provide
the health care services we so desperately need here.
How do we do that? We do it by making their work environment
much better and by providing them with not only the technology
and equipment but also with a lower tax rate to make them
competitive and put more money in their pockets.
1300
We have to look at other areas in our country, at rural areas
and aboriginal communities where the health care services they
have today are not acceptable. We need to look at them in order
to address how we are going to provide better health care in
rural areas and in aboriginal communities.
The problems are enormous. What Canadians are looking for is
leadership. They are looking for leadership from people who have
new ideas, who are willing to be part of a partnership. Whether
this Liberal government likes it or not, the constitutional act,
the BNA Act, has given the delivery of health care to the
provinces. It is a provincial responsibility.
Yes, it makes bad photo ops prior to a federal election if the
federal government does not get the credit for it. I am sorry,
people, but the provinces are the ones with the responsibility.
The federal government's responsibility is to work with the
provinces, not to threaten them, not to coerce them, not to
blackmail them, but to work with them to find the solutions, to
find areas in which we can better our health care system.
What we have had is a federal government that is so concerned
with getting the credit that it blames the provinces for
everything that has happened. It blames the provinces for the
crisis in the health care system. It wants photo op politics. It
will spend $8 million to get photo op politics, to get the
accolades that go with saving our health care system.
It is time that we put away jurisdictions. It is time that we
delivered good health care to our citizens. It is time for our
federal government to acknowledge and to respond to its place in
delivering the health care system, and that is to make a
financial commitment that it sticks with and does not change. If
that means legislating, so be it. It means that we legislate a
commitment of the federal government.
If it means that the federal government does not get the credit,
so be it. The main concern should not be buying votes at
election time. The main concern should be that every Canadian is
able to get the medical services when needed, at the time—
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I think it is inappropriate in the House to allege that the
government is buying votes. It is unparliamentary.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Your point is well
made. I was paying attention to that. The allegation was made
in the obtuse. It was not directed at any one individual or at
any one ministry. It was an obtuse suggestion and as such I did
not consider it unparliamentary.
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting
that the government would be so sensitive to that fact and yet
see nothing wrong in spending $8 million on advertising to the
Canadian people who is responsible for saving medicare. If that
is not vote buying, then I would be interested to know what is.
The reality is that the federal government has made a commitment
to the Canadian people and the big question is from its past
delivery, its past governance: can Canadians trust it to
deliver? I would say no, Canadians cannot.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the
dissertation of the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley
and a number of things escaped me. She talked about the loss of
money in the envelope for health care spending. It is quite
common that people forget about tax points.
I know I will not be able to sell the country on tax points, but
I would like to draw members' attention to the concept that the
provinces and the federal government came to an agreement on years
ago. Rather than transfer cash payments to the provinces, the
federal government would transfer a combination of cash and
taxing room. In other words, the provinces would be allowed to
tax more and the federal government would tax less in the area of
income taxes.
During this same period revenues have increased. In fact the
propensity for provinces to gain more revenue to support the
health care system is also part of this arithmetical formula. It
serves the opposition to simply ignore that fact of reality as if
Confederation and other things in this country had never
happened, but that is reality.
1305
This member likes to use examples. She constantly alludes to
what a great system the Americans have and gave a number of
examples about people in her own communities and so forth who are
without health care.
I would just like to give an example. I can remember being on a
dock in Florida. Beside me were an American doctor from Illinois
and a fellow who had a heart attack while fishing. In
cardiac arrest, lying on the dock, is this man of about 63 or 64
holding onto this doctor's hand and saying “Do not send me to a
hospital. I cannot afford it. I will lose my house”. That is
the kind of health care system that the Alliance would like us to
have here in Canada.
The Alliance constantly talks about the provinces'
responsibility for health care. Yes, under our constitution the
provinces are responsible for the administration of health care,
but the Alliance then turns around and says that it is
inefficient and that it is the federal government's
responsibility. The Alliance cannot have it both ways. If the
provinces are responsible for the administration of health care,
the provinces are responsible for the inefficient use of that
money.
Finally, it is interesting that the hon. member talks about the
province of Alberta and the fact that people have to pay premiums
there. If they do not pay them they cannot get access. Her own
leader was the treasurer of the province of Alberta. That is the
kind of health care system the Alliance wants to bring to
Canadians.
Ms. Val Meredith: I do not ever recall saying that I
thought we should have an American health care system. I do not
believe that and neither does the Canadian Alliance.
What we are concerned about is that when we send Canadians to
the U.S. to have their treatment because we cannot provide it
here, it costs, in the case of this one individual, $60,000 to
the health care system of B.C. or Canada to pay for this service
in the States. That $60,000 U.S. is not helping to support our
Canadian health care system. It is helping the public health
care system in the United States. That is what I object to. We
are using our Canadian health care dollars every time we send one
of our patients south of the border.
It is happening all the time. I have newspaper clippings here.
The third patient in a week went to Seattle. This was a trauma
patient who was turned away from three hospitals in the lower
mainland and got shipped to Seattle to get trauma care after a
motorcycle accident in which the guy's spleen was split wide
open. These sorts of things should be treated immediately. He
was sent to Seattle.
Guess what? Our Canadian dollars are supporting that medical
system in Seattle. They are not in Canada supporting our health
care system and that is the responsibility of this government
because it took the money out of the provinces' hands and the
provinces cannot deliver the care citizens require. It is the
responsibility of the government. The government took $6
billion-and-something out of the health care system, no one else.
That is its responsibility. It ought to assume that
responsibility instead of trying to pass it on to the provinces.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, in my own community in Calgary West, some of the
constituents I have door-knocked have talked about some of the
practical, real, front line implications of these cuts the
government has made to health care over the last while. I have
seniors in my community who have of course contributed to the
growth and the building of this country. They are the foundation
upon which we stand and yet they are in lineups for hip
replacement surgery. For these people, frankly, every single day
they have left is precious. Health complications like these only
make it that much more difficult.
I wonder if the hon. member might be able to comment, for
example, on how the government cuts have resulted in people
having to line up for hip replacement surgery.
I would also like the hon. member to comment, for example, on
the case of my grandmother who received eye surgery. She went to
a clinic called the Gimbel Eye Centre, in Calgary. The reason
she went there, of course, was that the public system was not
able to handle her for months.
Instead of operating on both eyes at once, they would have done
one eye at a time with regard to her developing cataracts. If
that were the case, my grandmother would have been deprived of
her sight for months. As well, the public procedures in terms of
the facilities in Calgary were actually less effective than those
of the centre.
1310
I know the government was trying to do its best to make sure
that my grandmother could not get access to those things. The
government would force a woman in her eighties to go to the
United States to get that type of surgery. I would like the hon.
member to comment on that.
The member talked about $8 million in ads. I wonder whether the
$8 million the government has put into ads to try to pull the
wool over the eyes of Canadians would be better spent on doctors
and nurses.
What about the 50:50 commitment there used to be with regard to
health care in Alberta? Alberta was paying 91% of the health
care bill in our province. I wonder what it is like in the
member's native province of British Columbia.
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I think we need to clarify
something for the listening audience. When I talk about a $6
billion cut I am talking about each year. Collectively over the
five years it was budgeted for, we are talking in the
neighbourhood of $30 billion. That is the enormity of the actual
loss in funding that the provinces have had to operate under.
I would like to talk about private clinics versus publicly
administered health care services. I do not imagine that there
is a province in Canada that does not have some type of private
clinic. Some clinics are for eyes, some for general practice,
some for laboratory work, some are abortion clinics and so on.
There are a lot of private clinics out there.
Here is the concern Canadians should have. Because of the
failure of our public system to handle the demand for hip
surgeries, cataract operations and whatnot, Canadians who can
afford it are taking to the United States the dollars that could
be supporting a Canadian health care system of private clinics,
public services or whatever. That money is supporting American
public health care.
I have good friends in Mount Vernon, south of the border, who
run a public hospital, from birth to death. They have a public
system for people who cannot afford insurance. People who come
into their emergency room are looked after whether they can
afford it or not. My friends are overjoyed with the Canadians
using their services, because Canadians are subsidizing that
public service they give to their own American people.
How does that make any sense? In Canada our people are waiting
15 or 18 months for hip surgery but if someone can afford to use
an American clinic, he or she can have surgery next week.
That is the concern Canadians should have. Our dollars are
supporting the American health care system, not the Canadian
health care system. We have to stop that. We have to make our
system work by a commitment, followed up on by the federal
government, to put funding in place which the provinces can count
on to be there, and that funding cannot be taken away
unilaterally when it serves the purpose of the federal
government.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-45 is
to implement certain of the Government of Canada's commitments in
respect of health care and certain early childhood development
commitments arising from the meeting of the first ministers held
in Ottawa on September 11, 2000.
The bill provides funding for the acquisition and installation
of medical equipment and funding for health information and
communication technologies. The amendments to the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act provide for increased
funding over five years to the provinces and territories through
the Canada health and social transfer for health, post-secondary
education, social assistance and social services, including early
childhood development.
Canadians have to ask themselves why the Liberals have to be so
reluctantly dragged into reality. In view of the bill before us,
the angle I am going to take for the moment is to put in
perspective children's and human rights legislation, entitlements
versus privileges and health care spending.
1315
While the UN declaration of human rights recognizes that all
beings are born free and have equal dignity, it gives minimal
recognition to the unique nature of childhood. Most of its
articles refer to everyone, but article 25(2) states:
Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and
assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock,
shall enjoy the same social protection.
There is no other reference to childhood and age is notably
absent from article 2 in the list of human characteristics for
which discrimination is precluded.
The 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms also makes no
reference to children per se, either their specific freedoms or
any limitation of them, except to recognize age as among the
human conditions for which discrimination is specifically
precluded.
Neither of these declarations mentions any responsibilities that
adults should or must have toward children when asserting or
using their rights. Article 3 of the charter states that every
citizen of Canada has the right to vote and to be a qualified
member of a legislative assembly. Since children cannot be
members of a legislative assembly it seems possible they were
overlooked in the legislation. Their special vulnerabilities
were certainly not acknowledged.
The 1991 Canadian ratification of the 1989 UN convention on the
rights of the child was thus of key importance for Canadian
children. The convention challenges the signatories to seek to
attain benchmark behaviours toward the needs, rights and freedoms
of children. As a co-signatory the Canadian government is
obliged to report on its progress toward full implementation of
the convention.
In 1999 the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children
reported on compliance to convention articles in six selected
areas. These areas are education, fundamental freedoms,
treatment of abused and neglected children, refugee children,
children with disabilities, and Canada's response to its
international obligations with regard to children.
A number of articles were assessed for this compliance: article
4, which is international co-operation; articles 13, 14 and 15,
which prescribe fundamental freedoms; article 19, which requires
protection from maltreatment, abuse and neglect; article 23,
which outlines the rights of children with disabilities; articles
28 and 29, which are directed to ensuring access to education;
and article 22, which requires countries to offer protection and
humanitarian assistance to refugee children.
Examination of these articles has shown seven areas where
children's rights are being systematically violated in Canada.
Action is required in 26 situations before compliance can be said
to be achieved. This lack of compliance is clear. One example
is the lack of both adequate national data on the extent of
disability in childhood and resources for children with
disabilities and their families.
In Canada the rights of children under the UN convention are not
fully recognized in many other ways. Article 3 requires that the
best interests of the child shall be of primary consideration.
When much of the information is examined in the light of the best
interests standard, it is clear that in many instances it has not
been attained. The lack of environmental standards specifically
directed to the protection of the fetus and growing child is an
obvious example. Likewise, data on school age children and youth
reflect the difficulties they encounter with regard to violence
and sexuality.
Article 17, while recognizing the social and cultural value of
the mass media, also directs states to develop appropriate
guidelines for the protection of children from information and
materials injurious to their well-being. A day spent watching
television or surfing the Internet confirms that such injurious
material is readily available to developing children, reflecting
the extent to which adult rights and freedoms continue to be
exercised without regard to the possible impact on the child.
Article 18, while recognizing the responsibilities of parents
for the upbringing and development of the child, also asks states
to ensure that children of working parents have the right to
benefit from child care services and facilities for which they
are eligible. Clearly we have performed indifferently in this
regard. The Liberal record is very poor.
Article 24 recognizes the right of children to enjoy the highest
attainable standards of health. Article 24(e) seeks to ensure
that all segments of society, especially parents and children,
are educated and supported in such basic aspects as health,
hygiene, sanitation, prevention of accidents, nutrition and
breast feeding. While the rates of injury have fallen over the
years, the relatively high rates that persist among young
children reflect the continuing attitude that the young child
must adapt to the adult world, oftentimes a developmentally
impossible task.
1320
While the advantages of breast-feeding are today more widely
known, rates of breast-feeding rapidly diminish in the weeks
following birth through the lack of ongoing support for this
natural process. Similarly the record of Canadian hospitals in
adopting the World Health Organization 10 step breast-feeding
support program can only be described as abysmal.
Article 26 recognizes the right of every child to benefit from
social security. Article 27 calls on states to recognize the
right of every child to a standard of living that is adequate for
the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social
development. It also states that while parents have primary
responsibility to secure these standards, states will assist
where necessary through material assistance and support programs,
particularly with regard to nutrition, clothing and housing.
With food banks that serve thousands of individuals, with
extensive dependency on clothing exchanges and donation programs
for those in need, with school nutrition programs essentially
dependent on non-government agencies, and with the number of
homeless children and families increasing in large cities, it is
clear that Canadian governments have much work to do before
compliance with these articles is achieved.
Under article 31 children are entitled to rest and leisure and
equal opportunities for cultural, artistic and recreational
leisure activities. Chapter 7 demonstrates that such activities
are viewed not as universal entitlements in Canada but as
privileges dependent upon adequacy of family income.
Sexual abuse of children and adolescents is all too common,
especially for those who have disabilities or who live on the
street. Article 34 charges states to protect children from all
forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse and includes in
this protection from inducements or coercion. Measures must be
taken to protect them from prostitution, unlawful sexual
practices and exploitative use in pornographic performances and
materials.
The apparent acceptance of high rates of prostitution as a means
of survival among the youth living on the street, the horrendous
revelations regarding official suppression of evidence of sexual
abuse of children in both residential schools and recreational
and sports activities, and the 1999 decision on the possession of
child pornography in British Columbia are all examples of our
delinquency as a society toward children and of the consideration
of adult freedoms over children's rights. It is a record of the
Liberal government's failure.
Many of the articles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the
Child challenge the age-old attitude to children that regards
them solely as parental property. This is a particular tension
in North American society, reflecting attitudes that must be
questioned in today's rapidly changing family demographics.
A comparison of the facts of the health of Canada's children
with the provision for child health and well-being in the UN
convention is a sobering but worthwhile exercise. It becomes
clear that the rights and freedoms of children are generally
dependent upon the goodwill of adults. When this fails, children
often lack ready mechanisms to redress situations of concern. The
old style Liberal government has failed the country.
While Canada has ratified the UN convention, it unfortunately is
not part of domestic law, has yet to be used in Canadian courts
and is not legally respected. These circumstances leave many
children in society still lacking in many basic human rights. We
have a government that has failed children and should be
denounced.
The Canadian Alliance supports the increased funding of health
care for Canadians, especially children, but it does not believe
just putting more money into the issue will solve all the
problems in our health care system, again, especially the
situation for children.
While the funding is welcomed by our party we also oppose the
Liberal government's opposition to attempts by the provinces to
find new, different and more creative ways to deliver services
within the Canada Health Act. Our party has greater respect for
provincial jurisdiction of health care under the constitution and
would work with the provinces to find more effective and
efficient ways to deliver health care services.
The current Liberal government cannot continue to denounce the
provinces for trying to establish less top heavy,
bureaucratically inefficient, Soviet style health care delivery
systems. It is a position of the Canadian Alliance that more
money does not necessarily solve all the problems that arise from
inefficient delivery models. Restricting how the provinces may
use the money does nothing to help heal our health care system.
My community wants better governance than we have had. I will
continue to be their voice for higher standards, a more
comprehensive consideration for families and children, and an
accountable, optimistic vision for the 21st century.
1325
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member is suggesting that the government has done nothing
for children and families. Although I was not prepared to speak
on this, I wrote down a couple of items that perhaps the House
would like to be refreshed on.
First, there is the increase in the Canada child tax benefit to
the advantage of all families with children. Another $2.5
billion included in there means an aggregate of $9 billion
annually goes to families with children.
On January 1, 2001, there will be an increase in maternity and
parental leave benefits. Parents can choose to provide direct
parental care to their children up to a full year. Families with
children will benefit from the $1 billion for that program.
The child care expense deduction was increased in 1998 from
$5,000 for a preschool child and $3,000 for a school age child up
to $7,000 for a preschool child and $4,000 for a school age
child.
There is also the deindexation of the Income Tax Act and the
increase in the basic personal amount available to all Canadians.
This puts more money into the pockets of Canadians so that they
can choose to provide the kind of care their children need.
These are just some of the examples of the work the Government
of Canada has done on behalf of all Canadians to invest in
children, who are our future. I would ask the member to simply
clarify his remarks with regard to the investment we have made in
children.
Mr. Paul Forseth: Mr. Speaker, I tried to very quickly go
through details to try to provide a different perspective on the
general conversation around health care. I tried to say that
concerning our international commitments, when we compare what we
are doing with the commitments we have made under the UN
convention of the child, Canada comes up very short.
What the member has talked about goes a bit in the right
direction but is still very short of what could have been delivered
in the current fiscal envelope. Under our solution 17 package
the child care expense deduction is still there and the child tax
benefit is still there, but where is the standard deduction for
children that is not means tested, that as a society recognizes
the value of children, and that provides freedom and opportunity
for parents to decide how they will look after their own
children?
I think I have painted quite a stark picture of how Canada
boasts internationally and makes proud commitments but within
these domestic borders falls very short.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby spoke
about early childhood development. That is one of the aspects of
the bill. I suggest that there is no greater need for early
childhood development than in the area of health care, where we
see huge lines of very young children waiting for surgery. That
is a travesty in terms of early childhood development.
I would like the hon. member to comment on the $8 million
pre-election ad campaign the government is running these days. In
my riding they could not get funding for an MRI diagnostic
equipment machine. It costs about $1 million. The $8 million
the government is wasting on its ad campaign would have bought
eight MRI machines. To buy the machine they had to raise the
money locally, within the constituency, because there was a
shortage of funding as a result of the $30 billion the government
cut from the health care system through its drastic cuts in
transfers to the provinces over the past five years.
Would the member see that as being of detriment to the early
childhood development he is talking about today?
Mr. Paul Forseth: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has made the
point. I do not need to repeat it. However I can add to what he
has said.
Typically when governments are heading into elections government
departments spend taxpayer money on soft advertising or image
building for government services. People understand that as
being quasi-political advertising.
1330
I will give another example of that. We have these soft, warm,
fuzzy commercials that talk about how we are glad that the family
law system and child maintenance are there because children are
first. Then there is the web page number and so on.
I look at the expense of producing those commercials and at how
many thousands of dollars it costs every time those commercials
are run, yet the government has done nothing to implement the
joint Senate-House of Commons committee report on child custody
and access and has done nothing to reform family law.
Instead of fancy commercials to make us feel warm and fuzzy
about the federal government, that money should have been put
into providing real services to children, to establish unified
family courts across the country and all kinds of relief that
could be directly provided to children and families.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, to pick up on the last point the member brought forward
about the joint Senate-House of Commons committee on our
children, the child custody issue and the recommendations that
were given to the federal government by a joint all party
committee of both the Senate and the House of Commons, I know the
member spent a lot of time travelling the country and taking part
in those committee hearings.
I had someone in my office again last week asking about the
45 recommendations. He was a divorced dad who was trying
to get access to his children, trying to look after his
children and trying to pay his child support.
I wonder if the the member could briefly describe what he thinks
should have been done. Could he also give us some of the key
recommendations of the child custody report that he spent so much
time working on, and tell us what has happened to children at
risk because of this government's lack of action on that front?
Mr. Paul Forseth: Mr. Speaker, many other countries have
gone through the same agony of trying to update their divorce and
separation laws. Certainly Canada is far behind developments in
the western world on that issue.
The road map is there, but the response of the federal
government is that it is just one more study in the ongoing
debate. The federal government has absolutely no political
commitment to take action on the review of family law.
No matter where we go, from province to province, there is an
agenda out there in the public, that is, the family law system is
broken and in a mess and it needs leadership from the federal
government, not an excuse saying that it is a complicated problem
of shared federal-provincial jurisdiction and we must discuss it
further.
I want leadership from the justice minister and the government
with regard to taking some action and bringing the provinces along.
We can restore the balance and fairness in family law.
Where appropriate, we can make family law much more child
focused. We can develop shared parenting plans instead of seeing
children as property. We can work with the shared jurisdiction
of the provinces to enhance conflict resolution, non-court
processes and unified family courts across the country.
We can implement specifically the recommendations of the report
“For the Sake of the Children”, including the specific
principle of shared parenting and mutual parental responsibility.
We have to improve the process whereby grandparents have to go
through an extra barrier if they feel they have to get legally
involved with the situation.
We also have to get the courts to enforce their own orders.
We have to deal with the issue of false allegations in the whole
family law context.
There is a tremendous agenda but unfortunately the Liberal
government has a track record of no commitment to getting
anything done in the family law area.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I want to say a few words on the bill before the House
today, the bill that is putting more money back into health care.
I want to state the obvious, which is that even with the
additional money, we will still not be back to the levels we
would have been at if the government had not touched the bill in
the first place back in 1995 in the budget of the Minister of
Finance.
When the history of this period is written, we will find that
there has been no government that has taken as much money out of
social programs, particularly health care, as the conservative
government across the way. I say conservative because it is
more conservative than the Conservative government was when it
comes to restricting programs for people.
Now of course we have an election campaign that is about to be
announced. The Prime Minister will drop the writ this weekend
for November 27. One wonders what that campaign is all about.
1335
I think this campaign is more about the Prime Minister's fear of
the Minister of Finance than his fear of the opposition
parties. He is afraid of the Minister of Finance and afraid of a
rebellion on the backbenches of the Liberal Party.
Here is a government whose cabinet has recommended no election
this fall. Here is a government whose caucus recommends no
election this fall. Here is a government whose pollster has
recommended no election this fall. Here is a government that
knows the Canadian people do not want to waste $100 million to
$200 million on an election campaign this fall. Here is a
government that is only three years and a few months into its
mandate.
Here is a government that does not want a campaign, but there is
a Prime Minister who wants a campaign because he is afraid of the
Minister of Finance and a rebellion in the backbenches of the
Liberal Party. That is what politics has been reduced to.
I wanted to say those words in the debate today because the
Prime Minister has been trying to fast track absolutely
everything so that he can drop the writ come Sunday of this
particular week.
Some of my friends in the Liberal Party—and there is one behind
the curtain now—are quite embarrassed by the Prime Minister in
terms of how he is trying to engineer an election for his own
purposes because of his fear of the Minister of Finance.
The Prime Minister of course is bringing in the premier of
Newfoundland to be a minister in the government. The premier of
Newfoundland is not a member of parliament and, God help us, not
even a member of the other place, the Senate.
The Prime Minister is setting a really dangerous precedent. He
did this with the minister for trade and the minister for
intergovernmental affairs a few years ago. He put them in the
cabinet and called a byelection to get them elected. They were
not even members of parliament but were given cabinet positions.
The same thing has happened with the premier of Newfoundland. He
has been put in cabinet and is not a member of parliament.
The last time I remember that happening before this Prime
Minister was back in the days when, I believe, the leader of the
today's Conservative Party brought in a fellow named René de
Cotret and put him in the cabinet. He later ran in Ottawa
Centre. I think it also happened when former Prime Minister
Pierre Trudeau appointed Pierre Juneau way back in the 1970s or
early 1980s.
Here we have a Prime Minister in the modern age taking someone
who is not elected. He has done it three times. He is setting a
very dangerous precedent by putting three people in cabinet with
no election, without going to the people. I do not think that
should be done. If someone wants to serve in the cabinet, he or
she should be elected to the Parliament of Canada. The Prime
Minister has not done that.
We should have a very healthy debate about all these issues.
They are all very important. I believe we should have set
election dates. We should have elections every four years unless
the government falls on a confidence vote. We should have a set
parliamentary timetable with a set time for a throne speech, a
budget and a beginning and an end to a session so that the Prime
Minister cannot manipulate the timetable for his own partisan
political differences.
Some of the people most frustrated with this are the Liberal
backbenchers themselves. When they walk out of the House they
tell me how frustrated they are with a Prime Minister who runs a
one man show with the support of one or two ministers and a few
bureaucrats in his office, including one of my friends who I see
across the House here today.
The system has to change. We need a government and a parliament
that listens to the people of Canada. If we had that we would
not have had the big cutbacks in health care in 1995 to begin
with.
There are Liberals hanging their heads in shame. Their
government has cut absolutely billions of dollars out of health
care. They were a bunch of nervous nellies who were afraid of a
Leader of the Opposition at that time who was advocating massive
cutbacks in health care and in social programs. The Liberals cut
back more than any other government in the history of Canada.
They should be very embarrassed by their government's position.
Someone across the way said that it would be a dinosaur who
would advocate more money for health care. I do not know where some of
those Liberals have been but they should talk to the ordinary
people in this country. Canadians want an investment into
programs for people. They want the social deficit eliminated.
They want the opportunity to have health care regardless of their
incomes. Those are the things Canadians want but the government
is cutting back on them.
1340
Health care came into this country through a courageous fight
many years ago waged by people in Saskatchewan. It began back in
the 1940s with hospitalization and in the 1960s with health care.
It was people like Tommy Douglas who brought health care into the
country.
If we look at the Canadian population we will find that there is
no program as popular in Canada as health care, yet we have
Liberals across the way laughing about it, saying that it is an
old-fashioned thing, that it is out of touch, a thing of the
dinosaurs. I wish they would get up in the House and say that
publicly rather than just heckling.
Last week I was talking with a number of people in the inner
city of Regina who were very concerned about losing health care.
They were very concerned about the government's massive cutbacks
in all social programs. They were concerned about the government
putting all the money on paying down the national debt while
forgetting to invest in people and paying off the social deficit.
Where are the great progressive Liberals, those great left wing
Liberals who used to stand in the House and advocate programs for
people, advocate the redistribution of income and wealth in the
country, advocate a vision of a country that is based on sharing,
co-operation and greater equality? Now they seem to be Alliance
people in a hurry. There is not much difference between the two
parties in terms of their tax programs, paying down the national
debt and forgetting about the fact that we need money and
programs for the people.
There will be a choice in the election that is coming up. There
will be a couple of different visions in the election. There are
two parties, the Alliance and the Liberals, that share a very
similar vision as to how they want to organize the economy. There
is an argument as to whether or not they should put more money
into the debt and deficit or put more money into helping wealthy
people pay down their taxes.
The Alliance Party has a 17% flat tax that it is advocating in
its second term, a flat tax that would be a big cutback for
millionaires in the country. How much different is the Minister
of Finance? A lot of his tax breaks have put a lot more money
into the pockets of wealthy people in Canada as well.
I want to point out to the Canadian people that the Liberal
Party across the way will leave a legacy of being the most
conservative government in our post-war history: more
conservative than the government of John Diefenbaker, more
conservative than the government of Brian Mulroney and certainly
more conservative than the governments of Pierre Trudeau and
Lester Pearson.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if Canadians watching
the debate today would be shocked to know that we are debating a
bill that would put $23.5 billion back into the Canada health and
social transfer to the provinces for health care and early
childhood development.
If this bill passed, money in the medical equipment fund, a $1
billion fund, could flow tomorrow. We have members standing in
the House denying Canadians the right to that medical equipment.
Let me give an example. In regard to the province of
Saskatchewan, $33 million could be available tomorrow if its
member would support this bill and get it through the House.
There is a member opposite from British Columbia, where $132
million could flow in the next few days for medical equipment
such as MRIs and CAT scanners.
I have lost touch with the cost of an MRI or a CAT scanner, but
if we are looking at $1 million or $2 million, Saskatchewan could
have 30 of them in the next few days, and we sit here and debate
this.
The bill would enact $23.5 billion in addition to $14 billion in
the last two budgets that would be transferred to the provinces
through the CHST for health care, post-secondary education and
social programs.
How can the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle deny the residents and
citizens of Saskatchewan access to this $33 million medical
equipment fund?
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, did I hear the
parliamentary secretary correctly? Did he say that in the next
few days we will have 30 more MRIs in the province of
Saskatchewan? Is it a commitment on behalf of the Minister of
Health and the Minister of Finance that in the next few days
there will be 30 more MRIs? If that is the commitment, would he please
get up and tell us that is a commitment by the Government of
Canada. If it is not a commitment, then why does he say it?
1345
He is complaining that I spoke for about eight or nine minutes
in the House of Commons. The government could have put money
into the health care system in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999,
2000. However, the government cut back its funding of the health
care system by billions and billions of dollars making people
suffer and making sure that hospitals closed from coast to coast
in this country. Now he complains that we speak for 10 or 20
minutes in the House of Commons. Where is his common sense?
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I find it quite interesting to listen to the
parliamentary secretary when he said that if this bill does not
pass today at all stages hell will freeze over and the end is
upon us.
The parliamentary secretary knows full well that in discussions
with the government House leader, we were told absolutely, point
blank, that this bill must be passed by March 31 and I certainly
hope it will be. It would be under a Canadian Alliance
government. We were told that the funding is not in jeopardy and
that the provinces will not be disallowed the right to buy MRIs
or other equipment.
The government knows full well that the deal is going ahead. All
the parties in the House of Commons are going to support it. We
will support it. We want to make sure it goes ahead. The
provinces can carry on in full confidence that the $1 billion in
the technology fund which he talked about will be theirs. The
agreement spells that out. Everyone in the House knows that is a
fact.
This is the way the Liberals do business. They say either we
agree with them and agree with them on their terms or we will be
punished.
I would like the hon. member from Saskatchewan to describe for
us what he thinks about being held to ransom by the Liberals. They
are saying that we are not even allowed to talk about this issue
because if we do it we are somehow anti-health care. What does
he think of the Liberal tactics here this afternoon?
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, those are typical
Liberal tactics. That is why I speak so much about reforming the
parliamentary electoral system so people can have input, so there
is proper debate and proper participation in how we spend the
money that belongs to the taxpayers of the country.
When we debate an issue of importance like health care for a few
minutes, they get upset because we are going to stall things.
That is the same party, by the way, that has promised a home care
system and pharmacare in this country. Where is pharmacare?
Where is home care? We should be raising those questions in the
debate today.
I remember my grandfather telling me years ago that the Liberal
Party promised medicare in 1919 and fought for it. It did not
come in until the 1960s. It only came in after it was started in
Saskatchewan under the leadership of the CCF and Tommy Douglas.
Can we believe the Liberal Party? That is its track record.
We need serious parliamentary reform in this country so we can
hold ministers accountable, so we can have proper debates and so
the people of the country can have their voices heard. If we do
not do that we will find ourselves sleepwalking right into a
crisis in democracy. We are seeing that today with the snap
election call coming on Sunday by the Prime Minister. We are
seeing it in the way he brought Brian Tobin, the premier of
Newfoundland, into cabinet without a seat in the House of
Commons. That is really shameful and cynical political behaviour
on the behalf of the Prime Minister of Canada.
We know it is a fact that the Liberal Party does not want this
election campaign. The cabinet has been advising against it. The
caucus has advised against it. The Liberals' own pollsters
advised against it and yet the Prime Minister is trigger happy
and wants to call an election campaign. Is that democracy? Is
that the kind of system where we have checks and balances, where
ordinary people's voices can be heard, where people are empowered
and where we have a democratic system? Should one man be able to
call an election whenever he wants regardless of what is
happening in the country and regardless of what bills are before
the House of Commons? My answer to that is no.
We have a country where the Prime Minister appoints the head of
the army, the head of the police, the head of the supreme court,
all the justices, all the senators, all the cabinet ministers and
makes every major appointment in government without any proper checks
and balances by the House of Commons. This is something that
should be changed. We need a political system that is democratic
and that empowers people.
Finally, we need a change in the electoral system to bring in a
measure for proportionate representation where everybody's vote
counts and votes are not wasted. That is the kind of agenda we
need in this country.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask my colleague from the NDP to refer to some of the
remarks that were just made by the Liberal member a few moments
ago.
Let us be honest. The only reason we are debating this health
care accord is not because of the federal government, it is
because of the leadership that the provinces provided. They
pretty much dragged the federal government kicking and screaming
to the table to negotiate this particular accord.
1350
Does the hon. member agree with the Progressive Conservative
sentiment that this bill should be reclassified as the post-dated
cheque bill, given the fact that none of the dollars that were
initially cut by the federal government for health care will be
restored immediately? It will be done partially next April, but
the dollars that were cut will not hit the 1994 levels for over
three years. Would the hon. member support that this was a
provincially led initiative that the government had to accept
because it was a take it or leave it deal?
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I think it absolutely
is. Most of the money will start flowing well after the bill has
passed through the House. The money will go out next year and
the year after and the year after that but not in the immediate
future.
Once again, and I think the parliamentary secretary knows this,
it was the leadership that came from the provinces, particularly
from premiers like Premier Doer of Manitoba, the chair of the
premiers this year, and Premier Romanow of Saskatchewan, who
started to put this on the agenda a number of years ago. This
forced the federal government to act. The federal government was
a very hesitant player in terms of putting more money back into
health care.
This is the most important issue in the country. The money is
there. It is about time we reinvested more money into health
care.
I would like to enquire via questions and comments, where is the
promise on pharmacare? Where is the delivery and promise on home
care? I see Liberals hanging their heads and not getting up to
respond to that.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to enter into this debate on what I
think Canadians think is a very important bill. It is a bill
that the Canadian Alliance is pleased to support. We do not
think it is perfect but we are supportive of it in the sense that
it restores some of the gutting of the Canada health funding,
which took place under this Liberal government, and restores, at
least in part over the next few years, what the government took
away.
It reminds me of a famous political story in British Columbia.
B.C. had a premier who people said would put rocks in shoes for
the entire time he was in office. However, just before the
election he would pull out two or three rocks expecting that
everyone would say thanks for the relief and that his party would
be re-elected. That premier is long gone so we will not talk
about him. This reminds me of what the Liberals are up to today.
When it comes to health care, it is interesting and instructive
to go right to the platform that the Canadian Alliance Party will
be campaigning on in the weeks ahead. It is pretty
straightforward and in a capsulated form on the right hand side
of a document that can be found at www.Canadian Alliance.ca.
First, our plan for the health care system is to maintain
Canada's medicare vision and the five principles of the Canada
Health Act.
Second is to replace federal-provincial confrontation with a more
co-operative approach. We should not have to drag the federal
government to these meetings. It should be co-operative. Let us
try to work together on health care.
Third is to maintain funding commitments to health care with a built
in funding escalator to allow for increases in population,
changes in demographics and so on. That will be built into our
plan.
Improved funding will increase access to quality care for the
family. That is a given and everyone knows that. We will also
guarantee in law long term funding to the provinces so we can
rebuild our health care system with confidence. That is the big
thing.
Our plan also says that right now the Canada Health Act does not
impose any obligation on Ottawa to maintain funding levels. The
health accord that we are talking about today does not obligate
the federal government in the long term to give strategic long
term funding in health care. It is a short term agreement and is
good as far as it goes. However, it does not commit the federal
government in legislation that the provinces can count on the
funding for the future. Our plan goes on to say that the
Canadian Alliance thinks it is wrong that the health act does not
include that right now.
We will amend the Canada Health Act to ensure that the federal
government cannot unilaterally cut health care funding again. We
propose to entrench five year funding agreements, negotiated with
the provinces, in the Canada Health Act.
1355
The reason this is important is that the federal government, and
we saw some of it here this afternoon already, will go into this
next campaign and it will say all kinds of things, particularly
about our party, I believe. They brought in Mr. Tobin from
Atlantic Canada. They needed a rat pack organizer and brought in
the king of the rat pack to do it. He will be the king of the
drive-by smear. Whatever is said about the Canadian Alliance,
his job will be to paint an evil picture of it.
It reminds me a little bit of something our leader said in a
speech the other day when we launched our platform campaign
in Kitchener. Close to 2,000 people came out to hear this. He
talked a little bit about the health care funding. I remember it
well and it is something to remember for this coming campaign. He
had some advice for the Liberals, which was to try telling the
truth all the time.
It is so innovative for the Liberals that they might actually
find it is something worthwhile. Instead of saying, for instance,
that the Canadian Alliance will do away with the Canada Health
Act, maybe the Liberals would like to pick up the document, turn
to page 15 and say that we will maintain Canada's medicare vision
in the five principles of the Canada Health Act.
When the Liberals speak the truth, it might even feel good to
them. Instead of smearing other people, instead of spreading
lies, spreading innuendo, spreading nonsense that they know is
not true, what if they actually got up and spoke the truth?
There is an old saying that the truth shall set us free. What
it means is that it is a very freeing thing to tell the truth,
even about someone we may oppose politically. Instead of
attacking someone individually, instead of going childishly off
into the distance, painting on campaign signs and literature and
thinking it is funny, why do they not try just telling the truth
that the Alliance will maintain the Canada Health Act, will
enshrine five year funding agreements with the provinces, will
give Canadians back what the Liberal government took away and
will do it in spades?
The Deputy Speaker: I know the House will look forward to
the continuation of the hon. member's remarks later today. I
should advise him and the House that there are 15 minutes
remaining for him to complete his speech.
* * *
[Translation]
AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I have the honour to
lay upon the table the supplementary report of the Auditor
General of Canada to the House of Commons, volume II, for October
2000.
[English]
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e), this document is deemed to
have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
MISS INDIA-CANADA PAGEANT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
past summer the 10th annual Miss India-Canada pageant was held in
Toronto. It gives me great pleasure to rise today to
congratulate the winner, a resident of Ottawa Centre, Miss Ritu
Jalhan.
The Miss India-Canada pageant provides young Canadian women of
Indian origin a platform to display their grace, talent,
community contribution and knowledge.
Miss Jalhan, a 20 year old student who is currently studying
anthropology at York University, was encouraged to enter the
pageant by her friend.
I am sure my colleagues will join me in offering congratulations
to Miss Jalhan.
* * *
FEDERAL ELECTION
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it appears that the momentum for an election has
gathered a life of its own and that a fall election is now
inevitable.
I may not be here after the election to take part in the debates
in the House but I do want to go on the record as saying that it
has been a meaningful experience.
When I ran for election in 1997, I believed that some of the
most important things I could do would be to fight for equality
among all Canadians and work toward an egalitarian society, one
that did not categorize its people on the basis of race. I also
believed that it was necessary to restore respect for all human
life from conception to natural death.
1400
I leave without having accomplished either goal, but when I was
campaigning I made only one promise, which was to be faithful and
to make a good effort. I believe that I have honoured that
commitment by contributing to the debate.
Aside from those two larger issues, I have enjoyed serving the
people of Prince Albert. I thank them for entrusting their
federal affairs to me over the past three and half years. I look
forward to what the future holds for me. I wish you well, Mr.
Speaker, and all of my colleagues as well.
* * *
[Translation]
PERFORMING ARTS AWARDS
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
October 12, the Governor General's Performing Arts Awards
Foundation announced the award winners for the year 2000. This
is the ninth year these awards have been given in recognition of
an illustrious career in the arts.
Each of the recipients has left his or her own individual mark
and continues to inspire generations of Canadians. This year's
winners of the Governor General's awards for the performing arts
are: Janette Bertrand, Fernand Nault, Teresa Stratas, Stompin'
Tom Connors, Christopher Newton and Donald Sutherland.
[English]
Two other prestigious awards were also announced last Thursday.
The Ramon John Hnatyshyn award for volunteerism in the performing
arts was awarded to Mr. Walter Carsen.
[Translation]
The National Arts Centre award went to the Cirque du Soleil.
I would hope the House will take this opportunity to thank all
of the winners for their remarkable contribution to the growth of
the arts in Canada.
* * *
THE FRANCOPHONIE
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
secretary general of the Organisation internationale de la
francophonie, His Excellency Boutros Boutros-Ghali, is visiting
Quebec from October 16 to 18.
He will give a speech on the new political, economic and
cultural dimensions of the Francophonie. Later in the week, he
will address the theme of the Francophonie and democracy.
By placing emphasis on this important visit, Canada and Quebec
are strengthening their ties with other parts of the world that
share the same ideas on the protection and growth of the French
culture. In addition, we are continuing in our determination to
share the wealth that comes of living in French with the people
of the Francophonie.
We therefore extend a welcome to His Excellency Boutros
Boutros-Gali in the knowledge that Quebec will continue to take
the lead in its role as home of the Francophonie in North
America.
* * *
DESJARDINS WEEK
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to draw attention to the fact that October
15 through October 21, 2000, is Desjardins week. It was launched
officially yesterday.
This event constitutes one of the high points in the Desjardins
movement's centenary celebrations. Among other things, the names
of the recipients of the 25th edition of annual Desjardins awards
will be announced, and the Fondation Desjardins bursaries
awarded. It is the foundation's 30th birthday.
Through numerous activities both within the movement and in the
communities, the event organizers are underscoring its economic
contribution to the various regions of Quebec.
Thanks to its ability to unite the talents of Quebecers in all
fields, the Desjardins movement has been able to innovate
throughout its history.
Happy Desjardins week.
* * *
[English]
DARRELL AND ANTHEA ARCHER
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, where is the Liberal government's heart? It is
certainly not with entrepreneurial men and women on the family
farm.
In my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, the Archers, Darrell and
Anthea, recently wanted to add to the agricultural diversity of
Canada. They determined there was a growing market for water
buffalo milk and cheese in Europe and that the trend was shifting
to North America. They wanted to be a part of it. It made sense
agriculturally and economically.
One year ago they bought and began the importation of their herd
from Denmark. Agriculture Canada and the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency gave approval at every step. The herd was in
quarantine in Denmark and now is in Canada.
Now after an outbreak of BSE in one cow in Denmark, the Archers
face the loss of everything. They have invested everything into
this enterprise and the CFIA has demanded the herd be destroyed.
I understand the need to protect our beef and dairy markets,
both domestically and internationally. However through no fault
of their own, the Archers face the loss of everything. The
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has failed to offer this
family any compensation. This is not acceptable.
The Archers and the people of Canada need a change. It is time
for a government with a change. The Canadian Alliance will be—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Vaughan—King—Aurora.
* * *
1405
CANADIAN FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada has undergone an economic renaissance known
internationally as the Canadian miracle. Over two million jobs
have been created since 1993, the vast majority by a determined,
focused, visionary group of individuals who embody the very best
of human qualities.
They pursue their goals with passion and commitment. They
persist through obstacles even when they appear insurmountable.
In a world of constant change, they stay ahead of the curve. They
are innovators, risk takers and job creators. They strive for
excellence. They take pride in their products and services. They
contribute to their communities and, yes, they are nation
builders.
I am referring to small business entrepreneurs, the engines of
Canada's economy.
A strong voice for Canadian small businesses is the Canadian
Federation of Independent Business. This well known national
organization today has reached an important milestone in its
history. The CFIB has reached a membership of 100,000.
On a personal note, I want to express my gratitude and
congratulations to the CFIB on this important and very meaningful
event.
* * *
[Translation]
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER'S REPORT
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in the report tabled yesterday, the information
commissioner made an unequivocal attack on this government's
culture of secrecy, which deprives the people of Canada and of
Quebec of their right to access to information.
According to the commissioner, the highest government levels are
involved. The Prime Minister's Office, in an unprecedented act,
has refused to allow the commissioner access to its files. The
Privy Council Office is involved in a court challenge of the
constitutionality of the commissioner's right to carry out
investigations. Both Treasury Board and the PCO are creating
procedures to delay the publication of embarrassing internal
audit reports.
This should not come as any surprise. A government that looks
out for its friends, who then repay the favour through the
party's election coffers, has no choice but to conceal
information from the public. Secrecy is one of the things that
characterizes nepotism. In a country that claims democratic
practices, this is totally unacceptable.
* * *
[English]
THAMES RIVER
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the legacy continues. In 1984 Prime Minister Pierre
Elliott Trudeau initiated the Canadian heritage river secretariat
to recognize the great natural and human heritage of Canada's
rivers.
On August 14, 2000, the Thames River in southwestern Ontario was
officially designated as one of Canada's 28 Canadian heritage
rivers.
Over its 11,000 year history, the Thames River has played a key
historic role. Natives, hunters, explorers, fur traders,
settlers, soldiers and former slaves have all travelled this
natural highway.
Today, the river and its watershed are home to great diversity
of plants, birds, fish and animals, some of which are endangered
and found nowhere else in Canada.
Last month, at the annual Heritage Day Festival, I was pleased
to join with provincial and first nation representatives to
unveil a plaque recognizing the heritage river.
Congratulations to the many volunteers who made this dream a
reality.
* * *
CANADIAN FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the Canadian Alliance, I would like to take
this opportunity to congratulate the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business on having recently passed their 100,000
membership mark.
A number of the members of its national management committee are
in Ottawa today to celebrate this important event. I was
honoured to meet with them earlier today.
Small businesses produce most of the new jobs created in Canada.
They provide most of the new inventions and innovations and, yes,
they pay a ton of tax to the federal government.
Until the CFIB came along, the interests of small businesses
were largely ignored when important policy decisions were made in
government. All that started to change after the CFIB came into
existence. Twenty-nine years later and 100,000 members strong,
the CFIB has grown in size and influence to now become the big
voice for Canada's small businesses.
On behalf of the Canadian Alliance, congratulations to the CFIB
on reaching this important milestone in its history and may it
and its members continue to grow and flourish.
* * *
A WEEK WITHOUT VIOLENCE
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to give my support to
the A Week Without Violence programs being promoted by the
community YWCA of Grey-Wellington in Mount Forest, Ontario.
In past years, the community “Y” of Grey-Wellington raised
awareness of violence by holding competitions for T-shirt designs
in local schools, having the clergy dedicate prayers against
violence, sending letters to the newspapers, handing out
anti-violence literature and holding discussions.
In designating October 15 to 21 as A Week without Violence, the
YWCA asks us to be aware of our own attitudes and negative
behaviours as we pledge to spend seven days without committing,
condoning or contributing to violence.
I would like to thank the YWCA for the work it does and for
designating October 15 to 21 A Week without Violence.
* * *
1410
CANADIAN FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, when I was a new member of parliament, I
was given the critic area of small business. One of my first
duties was to meet with John Bulloch, the founder of the Canadian
Federation of Independent Business. He was an enthusiastic and
outspoken advocate of the small and medium business sector and I
learned much from his wise counsel.
Now 20 years later, the CFIB and I are still going strong and
still speaking out on behalf of small and medium sized Canadian
businesses.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business currently has
over 100,000 members across the country, the largest individual
membership business organization in Canada. One of its strengths
has been the direct input from its members in the form of surveys
which are sent to all members of parliament to assist us in our
decision making.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has done an
outstanding job advocating for small and medium sized Canadian
enterprises. Today is CFIB's first official day on the Hill. The
government would do well to listen to them.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL ANTI-POVERTY DAY
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, October 17
has been set aside as international anti-poverty day.
I share in the cry of Centraide-Québec, which, in its open
letter to people who are not concerned about poverty and to
everyone else, said “Over the past several years now, we have
come to believe that poverty and social inequality involve costs
and consequences that result in our society's shooting itself in
the foot because of its failure to sufficiently or properly
invest in the fight against poverty and inequality”.
On the eve of the economic statement, I encourage the Prime
Minister to show a modicum of compassion by re-evaluating his
priorities and by recognizing his government's seven years of
social deficit. This would be a fine opportunity to act on the
demands by the women who are continuing their walk for a fairer
and more humane world.
This is an appointment with equity the Liberal government is not
allowed to miss.
* * *
[English]
WORLD MARCH OF WOMEN
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
October 11, a group of approximately 250 women and men of
Ahuntsic walked in solidarity to fight poverty and violence
against women.
[Translation]
I would like to thank all those who contributed to the success
of our march, especially Mireille Belisle, the founder of the
Fondation Mélanie Cabey, a not for profit organization to support
the disappeared; SNAC, a food and community action service; the
Ahuntsic CLSC, which manages Réseau justice et foi; the Centre
des femmes italiennes de Montréal, which organized the event; the
municipal housing office; Courrier Ahuntsic; Amitié n'a pas
d'âge; Stations Nos. 27 and 28; La Resource; various elected
representatives and a number of private citizens.
[English]
We on this side of the House have worked closely and
co-operatively for the last seven years with all local groups to
ensure that all women in Canada and elsewhere receive justice and
equality, and that there is zero tolerance for violence against
children and women.
Congratulations on a successful march to all those who
participated in Ahuntsic and all across Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
ATLANTIC TOURISM INDUSTRY
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
on October 16, ACOA announced a new $19.5 million marketing
measure for the tourism industry in the Atlantic provinces.
While the federal government continues to promote tourism in New
Brunswick, certain rural communities are suffering as the result
of poor environmental decisions made in their regions.
Kent county, in my riding of Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, was the
victim of the construction of a huge pig barn in Sainte-Marie.
The Liberal government in office at the time failed to consult
the public and refused to do an environmental impact study.
The people of Kent county, who work so hard to promote tourism,
are now discouraged by the smell and the negative impact of this
facility.
I wonder how this Liberal government can expect the people of
Kent county to attract tourists to their region when they are up
to their neck in manure.
* * *
[English]
WORLD MARCH OF WOMEN
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with a
population of nearly six billion on our planet, we should be
aware that two-thirds, or approximately four billion, live in
relative poverty, while 1.3 billion live on one American dollar a
day. Seventy per cent of those living in poverty are women.
These conditions are in part what has prompted the organization
of the World March of Women.
Canada also faces poverty issues. Children who live in low
income families made up 13% of all children under the age of 18
in 1997. Of that number, 40% were living with a single female
parent.
1415
Homelessness, often equated with the extreme side of poverty in
Canada, is affecting young women at an earlier age. Women and
men from countries all over the world have signed a petition that
will be presented to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, along with
a list of demands to help eliminate poverty and, in particular,
the feminization of poverty.
Let us add our voices to those calling for an end to poverty for
women in Canada.
* * *
BRAIN TUMOUR AWARENESS MONTH
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
October has been set aside as brain tumour awareness month. This
is an opportunity to talk about the tragedies and the triumphs of
those who have suffered from brain tumours.
As a medical practitioner, my life was touched by a brain tumour
but nowhere more than five and a half years ago when one of our
colleagues in the House was struck down by this disease.
Thankfully she was diagnosed early and treated quickly and today
her health is excellent. She retired from politics just before
the last election. I had an opportunity to talk with her and she
is advocating brain tumour awareness.
I give my congratulations to the medical workers in this field,
to the scientists, to the people who treat brain tumours, and to
Beryl Gaffney, retired MP, for her work on this cause.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER'S REPORT
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the report of the auditor general
today and the report of the information commissioner, which was
blocked from question period yesterday, cataloguing the Prime
Minister's disrespect of public funds and the democratic process,
were interesting.
The commissioner's report in bold type has the words
“Mayday—Mayday”, the international call for help. The report
in question says that the action of the Prime Minister's Office
is “undermining the democratic process”.
The Prime Minister needs to stand right now and do one of two
things. He should tell us the information commissioner is not
telling the truth or apologize to Canadians for undermining
democracy. Which one is it?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have a law on freedom of information and we are
obliged by the law. Yes, there are requests. We have to analyze
every request to see if it is within or outside the law. Of
course some information has to remain privy to the offices
of the Prime Minister and the ministers for the proper
administration of government.
When we have a disagreement there is a mechanism in the law that
exists. The commissioners can go to court and ask for a ruling.
When they go we oblige, but at the same time we have to protect
the responsibilities of ministers to have the right to
communicate among themselves for the betterment of the
government. We have the right to have some—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister missed the point.
It says he is undermining democracy.
It is no wonder that we have such a hard time getting
information from the HRD commissioner on wasting $3 billion a
year when the information commissioner says that the future
careers of the commissioner's staff have been threatened, and
that if members of the public service come to believe that it is
career suicide to do a good job for the information commissioner,
the effectiveness of the office is in grave danger.
If the Prime Minister is refusing to apologize to the public for
undermining democracy, will he at least apologize to the
information commissioner's staff for any threat to their
livelihood?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if any threat has been made by anybody, I hope these
people will make specific accusations about it. It is completely
unacceptable if their jobs were threatened.
I will see that proper action is taken, if somebody did it, but
we want to have the facts, not a statement.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): They did, Mr. Speaker, very specifically, and the
Prime Minister thinks he can win an election on those values.
The information commissioner makes other rulings, directly to the
Prime Minister's Office, that no other minister, in 17 years, has
refused to co-operate with the information commissioner's
investigations, and that the Prime Minister's Office may be
sending a message to other ministers to cease co-operating with
investigations.
No other minister in 17 years has had such a poor performance as
the Prime Minister, undermining democracy, threatening public
servants and encouraging cabinet ministers not to co-operate with
investigations. If the information commissioner is not telling
the—
The Deputy Speaker: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is a well-known process.
We in my office, as in any other office, are following the
precedents that have been established since the law was passed by
parliament.
1420
Now they want to move even further. They want to have, for
example, my schedule. Perhaps I should give it. Perhaps I
should not give it. However, I think there is some communication
within an administration that belongs to the ministers and the
Prime Minister. If the commissioner feels that he has the right
to have it, he can apply, we will go to court, and the court will
decide.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the information commissioner says
that the Prime Minister set the worst record of any minister in
17 years. Looking at this, it is no secret the Prime Minister
does not want to show off a recent poll which says Canadians
think he is the most arrogant and untrustworthy of all political
leaders.
He can restore some small faith to Canadians if he would admit
that the $25 billion he ripped out of the health care system went
to cover the $21 billion that he wasted in HRD. Will he admit
that?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, he is all over the map. We decided to give good
government to Canadian people. I have been a member of
parliament since 1963 and I have always done my job in the proper
way.
I always come to the House of Commons. I always reply to
questions asked of me. I am always talking to the press. I have
been the same and I am still the same. However, when the Leader
of the Opposition makes accusations he should make accusations
that are precise and not make big statements like that. That is
why his credibility is going down every day.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister wants precise,
it is here in the information commissioner's report: the worst
record in 17 years.
If he will not admit that the information commissioner was
telling the truth, if he will not take responsibility for wasting
$3 billion a year which could have gone to health care, will he
at least support the Canadian Alliance position on health care to
add a sixth principle to the Canada Health Act that will
guarantee funding at the federal level so that no federal
government ever again could rip $25 billion out of the health
care system?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have Bill C-45 before the House today that will
guarantee money for the provinces for five years and the
opposition is blocking the process to pass the bill.
If the Leader of the Opposition has any authority over his
party, he will get up on his feet and say that the bill will be
passed this afternoon.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, two
important reports have been released in the last 24 hours: the
report of the information commissioner and the report of the
auditor general. These two reports show us just how democratic
this government really is.
How can the Prime Minister ask the public to trust him when the
information commissioner is making very serious accusations
about the attempts by the Prime Minister's own department, the
PCO, to control information in order to avoid accountability?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have disclosed more records over the past two years than ever
before, thousands and thousands of records.
But the law provides that some records, such as those for
internal use within each minister's office, may remain
privileged, and this has been respected by all information
commissioners over the years. I think that ministers are
entitled to speak with their staff without having to release the
content of such communications to the public.
If the commissioner feels that the government has acted contrary
to the law, he has a recourse, but we are doing exactly what
has been done since the law was first passed.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
government has been forced to disclose records. It holds the
all-time record for RCMP investigations. More investigations
have gone on in the riding of this Prime Minister than in the
ridings of any of his predecessors.
How does he explain that the PCO, his own department, is
challenging almost all the commissioner's powers, that it is
ignoring information requests and that senior PCO officials are
refusing to answer questions, probably under his orders, even
under oath?
1425
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member must know that the reason there are investigations is
because we have asked for them.
In the case involving the riding of Saint-Maurice now before the
courts, it was my office that called the police to inform them
that there seemed to be some abuses.
The fact of the matter is that we have tabled thousands and
thousands of documents and our present information policy is
the one that has been around since 1979.
I repeat that there are records and communications that must
remain privy to the government.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the PM has a
short memory.
In the Placeteco affair, his government attempted to conceal all
of the facts and it was the Bloc Quebecois which demanded an
investigation.
The PM can give all the fine speeches he wants. Let him stand
up and tell the public what his explanation is for the statement
by the information commissioner, referring to him and his
cabinet, that this was the first time in close to 17 years a
minister has refused to co-operate in an investigation by the
information commissioner. He is the one the commissioner is
referring to.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
shall repeat again what I have already said.
Under the law, there are certain documents which are privileged
information for the administration of a government, a minister's
office or the Prime Minister's Office. There are others that
are privileged information for MPs. There are certain things
that belong to MPs, that relate to the operation of their
offices. They do not want everyone seeing what goes on within
their offices. The same goes for everyone.
I am entitled to speak with my staff and my ministers and to
keep information just for myself. This is normal, and there
have never been as many documents made public as there were in
1999 and 2000.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, Bloc Quebecois): Mr. Speaker,
this is a very sad turn of events.
Is it not sad to see that the key Liberal value used by this
government as its mandate comes to an end is the control of
information and thus of democracy? Is this not sad?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member is focussing on just one part of the report.
The commissioner also says that he congratulates certain
organizations for their excellent co-operation.
The problem of concern to me is that they want to have access to
everything that goes on in my office.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: In your riding.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: No, no. I believe I am entitled to
communicate with the people who work with me without having to
make public all the documents and all the conversations.
This is how a government is run. MPs do the same. They would
be the first ones to complain if we went to see what goes on
their offices every day.
[English]
AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
auditor general gives the government a failing grade in meeting
its obligation for aboriginal health. Higher infant mortality,
lower life expectancy and chronic disease are rampant. Suicide
rates are astronomical.
Why has the government ignored 65% of the auditor general's
recommendations from three years ago for meeting its health
obligations to aboriginal Canadians?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
over the last 10 years the health status among the aboriginal
population has improved, with reduced infant mortality and longer
life expectancy, which is not to say there is not a great deal
more to do.
We are grateful for the recommendations the auditor general has
made in his most recent report. We take encouragement from the
fact that the auditor general has pointed out that we have made
progress since his recommendations in 1997. There remains more
work to do and we are committed to doing it.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, if the
health minister is so grateful for the auditor general's
recommendations, why has he ignored 65% of them?
In 1994 Canadians were horrified to learn of the desperate
conditions at Davis Inlet, particularly substance abuse and
suicide among youth. The government promised urgent assistance,
relocation and improved living conditions.
Six years later the suffering continues. The government's
failure to address the underlying problems leaves the residents
of that community at grave risk. Is the government prepared to
sacrifice another generation of aboriginal youth?
1430
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to inform
the member that we have been working very closely with community
members of Davis Inlet.
We are in the process now of moving a whole community, which
takes a significant amount of time, effort and planning. We are
on track to move a community out of a very desperate situation
into a brand new place to live with brand new housing, sewer and
water, all the different amenities people in Canada take for
granted.
I hope that will be what the member is expecting, because that
is what the aboriginal people in Labrador and the Innu are
expecting.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
report of the auditor general revealed today a growing pattern of
deals made in secret by the government, whether they have to do
with specs that are changed or offices in Sydney or whether they
have to do with approvals for HRDC grants that are given directly
by the minister in the riding of the Minister of Canadian
Heritage.
May I ask the Prime Minister one specific question about a deal
made in private? Why was the $100 million expenditure on
Downsview kept from parliament?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the minister
responsible for Canada Lands, the creation of that corporation
was according to the rules on creating crown corporations.
That corporation will report to parliament through an annual
report of Canada Lands. That report will be available to the
House committees. Therefore all parliamentarians can question
the officials on the operation of that corporation. Everything
is in the open.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the minister says everything is fine. He followed the rules he
wrote. The rules he wrote said he could hide a $100 million
expenditure from the House of Commons but he would let parliament
look at it after the money was gone. That is perverse and that
is wrong.
Will the Prime Minister of Canada undertake now first to change
those rules his minister hides behind and, second, to stop this
pattern of secret deals that betray the public interest of
Canada?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada Lands was built under an act of the Parliament of
Canada. This corporation is obliged to report to the House of
Commons in an annual report, as the minister said.
This is all according to the law passed by parliament. If the
hon. member does not want to have a crown corporation of this
type, he should say so.
We think that Canada Lands is a good operation at arm's length
from the government, so there will be a minimum of intervention
in its operation.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the government is trying desperately to look good on all
kinds of fronts.
The HRD minister has assured Canadians time and time again that
there were very few grant overpayments at HRD. The auditor
general disagrees with that. Only 76% of the more than 17,000
active files, that is, less than one-half of 1%, were subjected to
departmental review. That one-half of 1% generated 11 police
probes.
Why did the minister avoid the other 16,900-odd files? Were
there not enough RCMP officers to go around for the
investigation?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me begin by reading from the news
release of the auditor general wherein he wrote:
As I have said on a number of occasions, the administration of
grants and contributions in my department was unacceptable. That
is why we implemented a corrective action plan for which today
the auditor general has given unqualified support. He asked us
to sustain our effort, and I will commit to the House that indeed
we will.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is finally being addressed. They have been in
government seven years. I can understand they would get the itch
to do it right. The auditor general also said:
We note, however, that HRDC's review of 76 sampled files was not
sufficient to determine whether all 17,000 active files fully met
program requirements.
That is a heck of a shortfall. How can the minister defend
ignoring 99.5% of all those files?
1435
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely clear that the hon.
member opposite has never, in all these months, taken the time to
look at our corrective action plan.
The first thing that we said we would do was review our active
files, because of course that gives us the opportunity to correct
them now. In that action plan we also commit to reviewing our
dormant files and we are engaged in a process with
PricewaterhouseCoopers to do just that.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
auditor general informed us this morning of two serious problems
in CIDA's awarding of a contract to Transélec, in Louiseville.
This company now belongs to the Prime Minister's good friend,
Claude Gauthier, who also owns Placeteco, which received funding
worth $1.2 million and is under investigation. This is the first
problem.
How can the Minister for International Cooperation justify the
choice of Transélec in the prequalification stage, when it did
not meet the basic criterion of 51% Canadian ownership.
[English]
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the pre-qualification stage the
officials sent to the minister a list of seven companies, one of
which was Transélec. This was under the old system before a
competitive system was established, which we changed after the
previous government.
This company won the competitive bid with 30% under. It has
finished the program without any problem whatsoever.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that is
unconvincing, but there is a second problem. The auditor general
tells us that Transélec did not even get a qualifying grade on
CIDA's evaluation grid.
How does the minister explain the Prime Minister's friend
getting the contract?
[English]
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously the member is not listening.
The memo that went to the minister concerning the pre-qualified
companies included seven companies. Transélec was one of those
seven. Three companies were selected to go to bidding.
This was under the old system when these things went to the
minister. That is no longer the system. We have changed that
system, because we now have a transparent and open system in
CIDA.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, according to today's auditor general's report,
Transélec, the company run by the Prime Minister's friend and
campaign contributor, did not qualify for the $6.3 million CIDA
contract awarded to it in 1997.
Not only did it not meet the minimum score to apply, it was not
even Canadian owned during the pre-qualification phase. Yet that
did not stop the Prime Minister bending every rule in the book to
benefit his friends.
Why does the Prime Minister not just admit that the auditor
general has caught him red handed using public funds to favour
his Liberal friends?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the allegation is totally irresponsible.
First, CIDA's practice is to hire professional auditing
accounting firms to ensure compliance with professional decision
standards.
In this case CIDA accepted the formal declaration by the
proponent that the Canadian ownership requirement was met, with
the declaration confirmed by a recognized reputable Canadian
accounting firm. The allegations are totally erroneous.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, personally I think it is terrible that the Prime
Minister's career has to end this way. For over a year the Prime
Minister has attended his cronyism as business as usual.
According to the auditor general the PM has broken every rule in
the book in handing out this $6.3 million contract to his friend.
How does the Prime Minister defend this obvious abuse of taxpayer
money simply to reward his friends?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that the member tries to accuse the Prime
Minister directly is absolutely despicable.
This company was 30% below the bid. It finished this job and we
saved $2.5 million as a result.
* * *
[Translation]
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER'S REPORT
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we are still reeling from the report tabled by the
information commissioner, which states that PCO is challenging
his power to require witnesses to appear and to answer his
questions.
1440
This behaviour by PCO constitutes an attack on the very
foundations of parliamentary democracy. It is yet more proof of
this government's arrogance.
What explanation can the Prime Minister give the House for such
a flagrant lack of respect for parliament's decisions?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have here a portion of the report that talks about PCO, which
comes under my responsibility. I am quoting from page 15:
[English]
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister is free to read quotations that show
him in a good light, but there are also quotations that cast a
shadow over PCO, and there is no getting around that.
We are really reaching the bottom of the barrel when, because of
government paranoia, senior officials are driven to break the law
rather than provide the information required by the commissioner.
How can the government justify such contempt, not just for the
commissioner himself, who was appointed by parliament, I need
hardly point out, but also for the law?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member has just made a very serious accusation when he says
that officials are breaking the law.
An hon. member: That is what it says in the report.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: If he has proof, it is his
responsibility to give names and circumstances, rather than make
groundless accusations.
That is all they know how to do: make accusations and then hide.
An hon. member: It is in the report.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
* * *
[English]
AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today the auditor general confirmed
the HRDC minister has been grossly exaggerating, even
fabricating,
the jobs supposedly created from her free-spending ways. I
quote:
I quote again:
HRDC counted all the jobs created by a project, regardless of the
extent of its contributions toward the project's total cost.
Why does the minister insult Canadians with pretend numbers when
she knows she cannot back them up with facts?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed the auditor general agreed that
jobs had been created. There is a question over how many and he
is right that we did not document appropriately the data that
would support the numbers employed.
Having said that, the auditor general recognizes that last
spring we implemented a program to review all our programs to
ensure that we have appropriate outcomes identified and the
measures to confirm those outcomes. That work will be done and
implemented by next spring.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would hope that if we are spending
$3 billion a year something would be created. The problem is
that the minister justifies her reckless spending by saying jobs
are being created, and yet the auditor general says she has no
basis on which to make those allegations.
The records are not being kept. There are jobs being claimed
for which other people are paying. The minister is not coming
clean with Canadians. Why is she exaggerating job figures when
she knows very well that she cannot back them up with the facts
available?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unlike the party opposite we believe that
there is a role for government to play in ensuring that Canadians
have the opportunity to work.
As I have said, we are engaged as we speak in a complete review
of all of our programs to ensure that we know the appropriate
outcomes and that we have the appropriate tools to measure those
outcomes.
The auditor general has given us his complete confidence in the
application of the program and we will ensure that the job is
done.
* * *
[Translation]
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER'S REPORT
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House, the President of Treasury
Board stated that it has always been government policy to support
the role of the information commissioner.
How can the Prime Minister justify such a statement when the
information commissioner says in his report that the Minister of
Justice chose not to defend the Access to Information Act when
its constitutionality was challenged in the courts by Privy
Council?
1445
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to that specific
situation, everyone in the House should know that case
involved a private litigant who decided to contest the
constitutionality of a section of the Access to Information Act.
I would point out to the hon. member that the information
commissioner ultimately concluded that the absence of the
attorney general at that stage of the proceedings was perhaps the
better approach.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in a letter from Ontario environment minister
Mr. Newman to Minister Anderson, Ontario has still not—
The Deputy Speaker: I assume the hon. member is referring
to the hon. Minister of the Environment, and I know she will
want to do that.
Ms. Aileen Carroll: Mr. Speaker, in a letter from the
Ontario environment minister to the federal Minister of the
Environment, Ontario still has not officially supported the
Canadian commitment for an emission cap in the transboundary
region.
Would the minister tell the House what he intends to do with the
Ontario coal burning power plants to make sure they achieve that
cap since it is now part of the Canadian commitment to the United
States?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the draft agreement calls for a 50% reduction of
nitrous oxide emissions from Canadian coal powered plants in
Ontario, and a 70% reduction of nitrous oxide emissions from
American plants during the smog season, May through September.
I have some doubt, and at this point I cannot say exactly what
Ontario will do, as there is some ambiguity in its positions,
but I can assure the hon. member that we expect the Ontario
government to co-operate with the coal powered plants it owns. If
it does not, federal legislation will be used to make sure we
meet those targets.
* * *
AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the week after David Dingwall was appointed a minister
of the crown, he said “I want the government to rent space in
the building at 338 Charlotte Street”.
Other competitors were denied the opportunity to bid because the
contract was drawn so narrowly. We paid $200,000 a year more in
rent than what was an adequate rent. It turned out after all
that we did not even need the space so we let it to someone else.
Why is it that every time the auditor general reports, we
get these smelly contracts which seem to produce public money for
private gangs?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first concerning the
bidding process, my department had an internal audit and the
matter was dealt with. As a matter of fact, in the internal
audit concerning that space, the auditor general cited that ACOA
had potential partners but that those partners did not come
through, and that was the problem. Now the government of Nova
Scotia is renting most of the space.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I like these internal audits. They lead to places.
Let me give another example. The Canada Communication Group was
privatized in 1997. It is now owned by St. Joseph Corporation.
The auditor general told us in 1997 that it was given a privileged
advance arrangement, in other words a sweetheart deal, because
it could go five years in business with no competitive bidding.
What is the connection between privileged advance arrangements
and the fact that in the last two years CCG and St. Joseph
donated $30,000 to the Liberal Party?
The Deputy Speaker: I think that question is out of order
as it does not appear to relate directly to the competence of the
government.
The first part of the question concerning the contract with the
crown corporation may be in order and the hon. Minister of Public
Works may choose to answer that part of it.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, St. Joseph printing,
like any other printing company, had to bid for the contract. It
was an open process and therefore the company had no sweet deal.
As a matter of fact it complained that we were too hard on
it.
* * *
ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to take the minister back to the deal cut in October
of 1995 among ACOA, Public Works and the Liberal government of
Nova Scotia, all of whom leased the space in Sydney at 30% more
than the market rate from a golfing buddy of the Prime Minister.
1450
The key provincial Cape Breton cabinet minister at the time is
today the minister of ACOA. Why would the government enter into
such a dubious deal? Is this the kind of questionable conduct we
can expect from the new minister?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said, during
that time my department had an internal audit on that matter and
all the questions were dealt with. As a matter of fact the
auditor general in his report quoted the internal audit.
The question of the transparency was dealt with and everything
was done according to treasury board policy.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, in Cape Breton, Liberal values mean contracts offered to
golf buddies of the Prime Minister: a friend under RCMP
investigation who got ministerial help arranging a sole source
contract from ACOA that saw hundreds of thousands of dollars
spent on renting empty offices. These are the values laid out in
the auditor general's report today.
Will the new unelected minister for ACOA be responding to these
documented abuses before Canadians are forced to go to the polls?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can continue on and
repeat the same thing. Everything was in order. Everything was
done according to the rules. The department had at that time an
internal audit and confirmed that everything was done according
to the rules in terms of space. The partners for that space did
not come through and ACOA was able to rent the extra space to the
government of Nova Scotia.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Internal e-mails to NRCan show that the heritage minister
intervened on behalf of a company to permit them to manufacture
less energy efficient refrigerators for 18 months beyond the
current regulation in the guise of protecting jobs.
Yet Camco's own internal documents, which I have here,
show that it will be sourcing those same refrigerators
from the United States 18 months from now anyway. This is a very
precarious precedent for industries and companies who invest in
environmental technology due to governmental regulations.
The minister is not concerned about jobs in Alberta for which
she makes regulations. Why are jobs in Hamilton more important
than jobs in Alberta?
Mr. Benoît Serré (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government must
strike a balance between our environmental goals and job creation
and economic development. We believe it is very important to
save 300 jobs for Canadians.
* * *
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the auditor general has identified many inconsistent and unfair
practices in dealing with Canada's airports. Toronto gets a $185
million rent reduction right out of the blue, while documents
from the ministry of transport show that Moncton airport will be
in a deficit position for 20 years.
Why does the minister have a special deal for the airport in his
own area and nothing for anybody else? Why the double standard?
Why the special treatment?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member that the
devolution of Canada's airports was one of the most successful
programs initiated by the government.
It is a program that has improved quality, has put management
into the hands of local entrepreneurs, has responded to the needs
of local communities and has given the kind of investment that
the public sector would have had to pay for but is now being paid
for by users.
The regime that has been put into effect is an accountable one
and one that has had uniform application across the country. It
has been tough in negotiating some of these deals because
airports have not liked the fact that we have to be consistent.
This has been consistent.
* * *
[Translation]
ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—James Bay, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who is also
the minister responsible for western economic diversification
and for francophonie.
The Commissioner of Official Languages has just released her
1999-2000 annual report. In connection with economic
development, the commissioner acknowledges the efforts of
Western Economic Diversification in helping to bolster
linguistic duality and the vitality of francophone communities
outside Quebec.
Would the secretary of state share with us how his department
obtained such results?
1455
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Western Economic
Diversification) (Francophonie), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of
all, allow me to thank the commissioner for her report.
We followed a very simple formula. We went out into the
francophone communities and listened to the people. We asked
them what their priorities were. We were able to provide them
with some funding, modest amounts, yet important.
The women and men in those communities went ahead and
implemented their plans, with highly successful outcomes.
We shall continue with the same approach.
* * *
[English]
GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the information commissioner has been bullied by
the government but fortunately he has not bowed out. The
auditor general is being swept aside as if his reports were not
important, but they are. We hear from HRDC about the thousands
of grant applications that have been handled incompetently, with
money being used questionably. We see from the auditor general
on the CIDA grants that a $6.3 million contract was
approved contrary to the rules.
Is there nothing that this Prime Minister will not do to help
his friends?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to say at this moment that when a person is
in public administration all sorts of problems can occur.
Because the Leader of the Opposition was a senior minister from
Alberta, I would like to refer to what the report of the auditor
general of Alberta said specifically about human resources. It
showed that human resources programs were always a challenge for
any government.
I am sure the government of Alberta appreciates the report
issued last week by the auditor general on the human resources
and employment departments.
In looking at the departments' skills development program, the
auditor found evidence of significant overpayments. He also
found that the controls within the departments were not adequate
to ensure proper record keeping—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Berthier—Montcalm.
* * *
[Translation]
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER'S REPORT
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
we have seen it in question after question. The government has
decided to attack the public's right to information.
The commissioner even told us in his report that the career
advancement of his employees was threatened in no uncertain
terms.
Will the Minister of Justice tell us whether she intends to
launch an investigation in response to these serious accusations
by the information commissioner?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the allegations made by the
information commissioner are very serious. I would presume that
if he has evidence to back up those allegations he will be making
that available to me. I would ask that he make that available to
me, to the President of the Treasury Board and to others so that
we can follow up on the information he has.
* * *
HOUSING
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last week
the unelected minister for Nova Scotia announced funds for the
homeless in the Halifax-Dartmouth area. This is the same
announcement, of the same money, the government made over eight
months ago.
It is starting to get cold out and in Canada homeless people die
on the streets every winter. In Halifax-Dartmouth we need youth
and women's shelters. We need qualify affordable housing now.
Why has the government held up funds for over eight months? Was
it so that the unelected senator could re-announce the money on
the eve of an election? Why are the Liberals playing
pre-election politics with the lives of the homeless?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first, I want to tell the hon. member that our member
will be voted in soon and he will be in the House very soon.
Having said that, I want to inform the hon. member that the
group in Halifax and the community groups have been meeting.
Their community plan is completed. I signed off last week, which
means that funding will be given to communities in Nova Scotia
immediately.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
decision on the future of Manitoba's land forces was supposed to
be made months ago. The military has tabled a business case
which has now been confirmed by a third party business case from
KPMG as being the right decision.
Why will the Minister of National Defence not accept the
recommendations of his own military and make this decision now,
before the election is called?
1500
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is also another consultant's report
that has come up with some different views on the matter. It is
a credible consultant. I and the department are examining that
report to reconcile the different points of view.
As soon as we do that we will make a decision that will be in
the interests of the land forces and the regiment to help ensure
that their operational effectiveness is best met and that we bear
in mind the quality of life of our soldiers and their families.
* * *
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the House
knows I do not often rise on a government question of this sort,
but this one has a personal interest. As well, it passes my
validity test.
Some people are saying that prison conditions are too soft. I
would suggest to them that they might try it for a day or so.
What assurance can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor
General give that prisoners are not living a life of luxury?
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have visited prisons across
Canada and I can tell the House first-hand that this government
is committed to incarcerating offenders and doing justice in
Canada. More to the point, unlike the opposition members who
do not want to work with the government in this very important
area, we not only rehabilitate but punish offenders in the
most effective way.
Instead of caterwauling away, they should be congratulating
Correctional Service Canada.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Deputy Speaker: I draw the attention of hon.
members to the presence in the gallery of Lord Russell Johnston,
President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been further
consultations among all parties in the House pursuant to an issue
I raised earlier this morning.
1505
I believe you would now find unanimous consent for the
passage of the following motion without debate. It is the same
motion that I read into the record today. I move:
That, at the ordinary time of daily adjournment on Tuesday,
October 17, 2000, no proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38
shall be taken up and that the House shall continue to sit for
the purpose of considering of a motion “That this House take
note of possible Canadian peacekeeping activities in Ethiopia and
Eritrea”;
That, during the debate on the said motion, Members may speak
for no more than twenty minutes, with a ten minute question and
comment period, provided that two members may divide one speaking
period;
That, during the debate on the said motion, the Chair shall not
receive any dilatory motions, quorum calls or requests for
unanimous consent to propose any motions; and
That, at 10.00 p.m. or when no Member rises to speak, whichever
is earlier, the House shall adjourn to the next sitting day.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the House give
its unanimous consent for the government House leader to present
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, there has been
consultation for the following motion which I would like to share
with the House as well. I believe you would find unanimous
consent for the following:
That, on Wednesday, October 18, 2000, the House shall not proceed
to private members' business nor shall it adjourn until the
Minister of Finance and a spokesman for each of the opposition
parties has spoken in debate on a motion: That this House support
the economic policies of the government provided that the
ordinary time of daily adjournment may be adjusted by the Chair
if required for the purposes of this order and to permit a full
hour of private members' business that day; and: That, on
Thursday, October 19, 2000, the House shall sit at 9.00 a.m. and
shall consider private members' business from 9.00 a.m. to 10.00
a.m., provided that any division requested thereon shall be
deferred until immediately after the division to be held on a
motion to concur in a notice of Ways and Means, to be proposed as
the first government order considered after 3.00 p.m. that day.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the House give
its consent for the government House leader to present the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.) moved that Bill S-25, an act to amend the
Defence Production Act, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking members
of all parties for their co-operation with respect to this very
important bill.
It is very important for two reasons. First, it will facilitate
a solution with the United States with respect to ITAR, but more
importantly still, it will ensure the implementation in Canada of
an effective control system that will support our interests and
those of the Americans in matters of security.
The environment is changing. New threats to security, such as
intranational conflicts, the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, and international terrorism, have appeared.
1510
[English]
These new challenges are causing western countries, including
Canada, to look at their defence needs in new ways. In the U.S.
the changed perception of this threat, especially in congress,
has led to an increased focus on domestic security issues. As a
global response to this increased risk of diversion, the U.S.
tightened up its export control over sensitive goods and
technology.
Canada was sideswiped by these broad concerns of new perceived
security threats when the U.S. department of state amended the
Canadian exemption provisions under ITAR. Many of the
preferential elements that had previously been available to
Canadian firms were removed and the definition of who could take
advantage of Canadian exemptions was also narrowed considerably.
This had major repercussions for Canada's industrial sector, in
particular, defence, aerospace and satellite industries. The
result of this action did, however, provide Canada and the U.S.
with a convenient and timely opportunity to pursue extensive
discussions on export controls of sensitive goods.
[Translation]
Among other things, the amendments have eliminated the earlier
preferential status of Canadian companies and imposed new permit
requirements for a vast range of goods and technologies. The
amendments have also tightened up the definition of who can
enjoy a Canadian exemption.
For our industry, the amendments add administrative formalities,
costs and significant delays that mean lost business
opportunities.
[English]
This is why we need this bill. Canada must establish
appropriate safeguards to assure both ourselves and our U.S.
defence partners that certain controlled goods and technology, as
set out in Canada's exports control list, are available to only
authorized individuals and companies. We need such assurances
not only to protect certain controlled goods and associated
technology of the North American defence, aerospace and satellite
infrastructure, but also to encourage trade and improve Canada's
national economic stability.
Putting these safeguards in place will be an important step
toward reinstating the ITAR exemption for Canadian firms,
allowing again for licence free cross-border transfer of most
U.S. origin controlled goods and technology.
A big part of this new system of safeguards is the proposed
controlled goods registration program. This Canadian made
registration system will be housed within my department and will
ensure effective control of access to and the transfer within
Canada of controlled goods and technology.
Very briefly, the registration system will work as follows.
Companies or individuals that wish to be registered or companies
that wish to have a temporary worker or visitor exempt from
registration must apply directly to the minister. Registration
will authorize the registered company's directors, officers and
employees to access controlled goods provided they are screened
by the company. If the application is approved it will be up to
the company to ensure ongoing compliance with the new regulations
and to establish a compliance system that can be inspected.
Companies will also be required to submit reports to the
Department of Public Works and Government Services and to submit
to periodic inspection by my department. As minister, I will
have the power to deny, suspend, amend or revoke registration and
exemptions on the basis of a security assessment. I will also
have the authority to request necessary information from
applicants for registration or exemption.
The bottom line is that when the bill becomes law, the transfer
of controlled goods in Canada may occur only between registered
persons and certain individuals or classes of individuals who may
be exempt from registration. U.S. visitors who are already
registered with the U.S. government are an example of the type of
individual that could be exempted.
1515
[Translation]
As I have just mentioned, the bill will create a new part 3 in
the Defence Production Act, providing for appropriate sanctions,
including imprisonment, for people and companies contravening
the act.
[English]
In conclusion, I thank all colleagues for helping to give this
important bill speedy passage. It will protect the security of
our North American defence system and in the meantime will allow
the defence sector to continue to do business with its defence
partners in the U.S.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a privilege to enter debate on the particular
bill. I am very happy with the hon. member opposite who just
outlined some of the provisions of the bill. I will go into the
bill in a little more detail and perhaps suggest exactly its
purpose and why it is needed in Canada today.
At the outset I assure the minister that we are here to support
the bill. Although we have some questions about it, essentially
we will support it.
Bill S-25 amends the Defence Production Act, as already
indicated, to establish a new regulatory system which will
regulate access by Canadian defence industries to certain
controls, military goods or goods with military application. The
bill reflects a new Canada-U.S. agreement on co-ordinated
legislative measures to strengthen our control over trade in
defence related goods and technologies.
The proposed regulatory regime will be administered by the
minister of public works from whom we have just heard. It will
ensure effective controls to have access to and the transfer
within Canada of controlled goods and technologies. Under the
proposed system persons would have to be registered by the
minister or be exempt from registration under the regulations to
have access to such goods.
I am sure some people listening to the debate will ask why we
need the bill. On April 12, 1999, the United States state
department amended the international traffic and arms regulations
and removed many of the preferential elements in the Canadian
exemptions contained in part 126.5 of ITAR. The amendments
reduce the scope of the Canadian exemptions by imposing licensing
requirements on a broad range of goods and technologies that had
been licence free before April.
In addition, the U.S. narrowed the definition of a Canadian
citizen and ruled that Canadians with dual citizenship could no
longer take advantage of the Canadian exemptions. These
amendments and the stricter interpretation of a Canadian citizen
have significantly and adversely affected access to U.S. goods
and technology, thereby affecting the competitiveness of the
Canadian defence, aerospace and satellite sectors.
It has impacted these sectors very significantly in that this is
a major part of the Canadian economy. There is a lot of trade
between Canada and the United States in these sectors. It is
essential that this part be secured because national security is
at issue to a large degree.
The United States had reason to take action on April 12 of last
year, despite the claim of the Minister of Foreign Affairs that
decreasing the export of Canadian military related goods and
materials controlled unrestricted defence related technology,
which was being sent by private companies in Canada to places
where it should not have been sent.
This was not some kind of willy-nilly action by the United
States. It had a basis in fact. The hon. senator observed
certain things in the action by the United States. For example,
he had heard the suggestion that components of our frigate
program found their way to the People's Liberation Army of China.
Additionally there was no provision under Canadian law to
prevent controlled unrestricted technology, including data and
other information, from being transferred between civilian
companies and others within Canada. That was the instigator, the
lever that caused the Americans to question whether they could
trust Canadians to maintain secrecy and to assure national
security both in Canada and the United States.
1520
This state of affairs and insecurity in our defence production
sector caused grave concerns. Our partner, the United States,
said that it wanted to protect its security. If we would not do
it, the Americans would protect theirs. The U.S. has threatened
to relieve Canada and did so.
There was a reason why the Americans did this. The hon.
minister mentioned just a moment ago that it gave us the
opportunity to do something. The interesting comment I would
like to make is that the Liberal government, over and over again,
needs to be prodded to do something meaningful.
A government that is concerned about governing the country and
its security would take and have the necessary precautions to
ensure the security of the nation and ensure that the secrets of our
technology and such intimate information would not be made
available to anybody.
There was a good reason for the Americans to do this. I am very
happy the government has now taken a step. I am also sad to say
that it took an outside country to draw attention to a weakness
that existed in our country.
On October 8, 1999, a Canada-U.S. agreement in principle was
announced, recognizing a shared commitment of both governments to
protect against illegal transfers or retransfers of controlled
goods and technology from North America and to maintain a strong,
integrated North American defence and industrial base. The U.S.
provided assurance that it was prepared to reinstate many
Canadian exemptions and enhance others in tandem with Canada's
harmonizing controls in the USML items within Canada and
introducing appropriate legal sanctions for infractions.
Is it not interesting that our government did not have the
initiative or the courage to do the things it is now threatened
with because it missed the point? As part of the agreement
Canada has put forward new legislation, which is before us today.
It will put forward new regulatory provisions that will
strengthen Canadian defence export controls as a result of these
changes. The Canadian export council list will control the same
defence goods and technologies as identified in the U.S.
munitions list.
The United States concurred with Canadian legislative and
regulatory changes. It intends to revise its defence trade
control regulations to reinstate most of the pre-April 1999
Canadian exemptions, allowing for licence free transfer for most
U.S. origin unclassified defence goods and technology.
The United States confirmed its intent to expand the exemption
to allow for licensed access to such U.S. origin exports by
Canadian citizens, including Canadian dual nationals and Canadian
permanent residents. The United States also intends to expand
the prior exemptions to permit the export without licence of
certain additional defence goods and technical data.
If this goes ahead we can be reasonably assured that we will now
have the same kind of reciprocal relationship that we had before.
Perhaps it will be even a little smoother than it was. That is
good.
It is interesting that the bill originated in the Senate. Why
did it not come from the government? It should have come from
the Prime Minister's party because it should have been done at
that level.
Why then is the legislation required? The bill is required to
reinstate special exemption for Canadian firms under the U.S.
ITAR so that permits for the export of defence goods and services
are not required. Without special exemption Canadian companies
are hampered from competing. An estimated $1 billion of the $5
billion business done by high technology, aerospace and other
defence industry companies located in Canada have been
potentially affected by the U.S. regulatory changes.
The bill will ensure a continued access to U.S. defence market
and related technology. The Canadian defence industry stated
that the Canadian exemption would be largely reinstated if there
was evidence that three major issues were being addressed:
first, the tightening up of our own export controls; second, the
harmonization of the Canadian export control list with the
American counterpart, which the joint agreement on October 8
states will be the case; and, third, the implementation of a
registration system. All three elements would come into play
with the passage of the legislation.
1525
We are on good ground at this point in time to ensure there will
be a smooth transition. The defence industry will be well served
with this legislation.
According to the government the legislation is further required
so that Canada establishes appropriate safeguards. It is not
just good enough to make the statements, but safeguards are
required to assure both ourselves and our U.S. defence partners
that the controlled goods and technologies as set out in the
Canada export control list are available only to authorized
individuals and companies.
We need such assurance not only to protect certain controlled
goods and associate technology of North American defence
aerospace and satellite infrastructure but also to encourage
trade and improve Canada's national economic stability. Since
about 85% of our export market is with the Americans to the
south, it is a very good idea to have good relations with them.
That is precisely what is being set out.
We have the provisions of the bill pretty clearly in mind, but
some other questions need to be addressed. Will the new
regulations be costly to Canadian industries? The minister has
already alluded to the fact that it will cost them something. The
estimate is between $2.5 million to $3 million annually, but the
cost to industry would be quite minor because a large percentage
of the companies that have control of goods are already in the
government's classified industrial security program. Thus
government has already screened a number of their employees.
Under this program, however, industry would have to appoint a
designated official to ensure that controlled goods are properly
controlled within companies. That would be the main cost to
industry. We do not know exactly what the additional cost will
be.
Does the Access to Information Act apply to the provisions of
the bill and to the Defence Production Act as a whole? The
answer is yes. However, so too do the protections for
commercially confidential information, as well as the possibility
of applying coverage for national security purposes. That is
important to recognize, but it places a tremendous onus on the
minister and his personnel to be sure the national security is
preserved.
We have to admit that although this part of the legislation is
necessary and essential and although we will support it, the
integrity, honesty, stability and accountability of the
government and its officials will be very significant and
important in terms of making the legislation provide for the
security we want in Canada.
Will the regulations in question be printed in The Canada
Gazette and therefore open to parliamentary review and
comment? This is an interesting question because, as we heard
this morning, much of this is done in secret behind closed doors.
Because cabinet has the authority to make regulations under this
act, it can make amendments to these regulations without making
them transparent.
According to the Department of Justice the regulations to be
made under the new part 2 of the act would have to be published
in the ordinary way. It would require pre-publication in part I
of The Canada Gazette to allow for comment and consultation
and to take views of affected parties into consideration for
revision of the proposed regulations. That would then be
followed by publication of the ultimate regulations in part II of
The Canada Gazette. The Department of Justice says that
they will be available. Then the defence industry and the public
will know that these are the regulations that have to be met.
Members in the committee proceedings in the Senate requested
that the minister undertake to deposit the regulations with the
committee once a year. The minister is on record as saying that
he had no problem with the request. The minister spoke to the
bill just before I rose to speak. We suspect he will do exactly
that. If we become the government, we would undertake to do the
very same.
Regulations respecting ongoing compliance would allow the
department to conduct inspections and gather information on those
registered. Would this give the government unreasonable access
to information which could be used in a manner that would violate
privacy? It is very easy to assume that could be the case.
What is the assurance that the information gathered when these
inspectors are in the highly secure industries will not be used
by the government for other purposes?
1530
Registration will authorize the registered company's directors,
officers and employees to access controlled goods provided they
are screened by the company. If an application is approved, it
will be their responsibility to ensure ongoing compliance with the
new regulations and to establish their compliance so it can be
inspected. Companies will also be required to submit reports to
the Department of Public Works and Government Services and to
submit to periodic inspections by the department.
Specifically, then, the department officials responded this way.
The intent, and I draw the attention of the House to the word
intent, of using administrative inspection is to enable the
inspector to look at the security systems in place and suggest
alternatives that will be helpful, which is the normal practice
of inspectors and other regimes throughout the government. The
intention is not to have the inspectors do anything in connection
with a criminal search.
If the inspector found something in the course of an ordinary
administration inspection that he believed was appropriate for a
criminal investigation, the inspector would have to present
himself in the ordinary way to obtain a search warrant. Thus, he
would have to withdraw from the premises and then, on reasonable
and probable grounds, assert evidence sufficient to obtain a
search warrant under the criminal code. That is absolutely
critical and essential.
The difficulty will be that there is a judgment factor involved
here and the person doing the inspection will have to make that
kind of decision. The incumbent will have to be very careful and
aware of what the security requirements are, what the regulations
are and what criminal offences could be perpetrated by certain
individuals or by certain companies.
In summary, the main provision in Bill S-25 is clause 5, which
would add a series of new provisions to the Defence Production
Act in the form of new parts 2 and 3 of the act.
The new part 2 of the act proposed in clause 5 of the bill would
provide for the control of access to certain defence related
goods. Essentially, part 2 would restrict access to such goods
to those persons who were registered by the Minister of Public
Works and Government Services or who were exempt from such
registration.
Pursuant to the new section 35, the controlled goods subject to
the proposed regime would be set out in a new schedule to the act
which would be added to clause 7 of the bill.
By virtue of new section 36, the new regime would not apply to
most public sector employees in Canada, when acting in good
faith, in the course of their employment duties or to any member
of a class of persons to be prescribed in the regulations.
New section 37 would make it an offence for a non-registered and
non-exempt person to knowingly examine or possess controlled
goods or to transfer controlled goods to another person. This
section would also make it an offence for any registered or
exempt person to knowingly transfer a controlled good to or
permit the examination of such a good by a non-registered and
non-exempt person. The section would clarify that transfer would
mean to dispose or disclose the contents of a controlled good in
any manner.
Section 37 would also clarify that a person's registration
extends to authorized corporate officers and directors as well
as authorized employees of the registered person.
New section 38 of the act would provide for a scheme of
registration of persons by the minister for access to controlled
goods. The minister would furnish registered persons with a
certificate. Registration and renewal of registration would be
subject to conditions to be prescribed in regulations made under
the act in addition to those that the minister considered
appropriate.
Moreover, the minister would be able to request any information
from applicants for registration which the minister deemed
necessary. The minister would be able to deny any application
for registration or suspend, amend or revoke a registration on
the basis of a security assessment to be prescribed in the
regulations. We can see the significance of the minister's role
in this operation.
New sections 39 and 39.1 would provide for a system of
ministerial exemptions for individuals or classes of individuals.
Under new section 40, registered persons would be required to
provide the minister with information, as prescribed by the
regulations.
New section 41 would provide for the designation of inspectors
to ensure compliance with the proposed rules.
1535
New section 42 would give such inspectors the power to enter and
to inspect any place; to require the attendance of and question
any person; to require any person to produce for inspection a
document; to detain or remove any controlled goods until satisfied
that it was in compliance with the requirements of the act and
regulations; and to require any individual in charge of a place that
is the subject of an inspection to take any measures that the
inspector considers appropriate. While exercising the authority
under this new part, inspectors could be accompanied by another
person.
New section 43 would provide the governor in council with
authority to make regulations for carrying out the purposes of
the provisions of this new act including: prescribing classes of
persons to whom the new restricted access regime to be
established by the purposed new part 2 of the act would not
apply; prescribing procedures for authorizing employees,
corporate directors and officers of registered persons to have
access to controlled goods; prescribing various matters
pertaining to registrations and exemptions under this proposed
new part. This would include: eligibility conditions;
applications procedures; the factors to be considered by the
minister in deciding on registrations or exemptions; the
minister's power to renew, suspend, amend or revoke registrations
or exemptions and make regulations of conditions of registration
or their renewal; conditions of exemptions and their renewal;
security assessments; and amending the schedule of controlled
goods on the joint recommendation of the minister and the
Minister of Foreign Affairs.
This last point is significant. We now have a countervailing
balance of one department with another department. It cannot be
done unilaterally by one minister alone. That is a wise thing to
do.
The proposed new part 3 of the act would create a new offence to
cover various acts of obstruction in relation to the inspection
and reporting scheme proposed in the act.
New section 44 would make it an offence to: provide false or
misleading information; destroy any record or document required
to be kept under the act or the regulations; make a false record
or document which the act or regulations required to be kept;
interfere with anything detained or removed by an inspector; or
fail to comply with any reasonable request of an inspector or
otherwise obstruct an inspector in the performance of his or her
functions.
It is a comprehensive act. There are very significant powers
given to the cabinet and to the minister in particular.
Pursuant to new section 45(2), violation of new section 44 and
any other provision of the act would be punishable on summary
conviction by a fine of up to $25,000 or imprisonment for up to
12 months or both.
Pursuant to new section 45(1), the punishment for violating new
section 37, that is, the access to controlled goods by a
non-registered and non-exempt person, would be on summary
conviction a fine of up to $100,000 or imprisonment for up to two
years or both, and on an indictment, a fine of up to $2
million or imprisonment for up to two years or both.
There is now a punishment or a fine that is given to
people who violate the provisions of the act. That is a
significant impact that gives the minister some power to do
things and make it meaningful.
There are two other sections that I would like to look at but I
will skip that for now.
I will conclude by saying that while we support the bill and the
provisions of the bill, we also recognize that there are some
serious questions with regard to the bill.
I appeal to the minister and to all members in the House that
something as significant as this, which deals with the national
security of a nation, cannot be treated seriously enough. The
threat can come from people giving information, technology and
access to controlled goods. This could fall into the wrong hands
and be used against our nation, which would make us less secure.
I commend the government for doing this. At the same time, the
record of this government does not give me the kind of assurance
that the minister will be open and accountable for all the things
that are in this act. I have some doubt about this because of
the results of the last report of the auditor general. I begin
to wonder sometimes just exactly how open and how forthcoming
this government will be about information like this. I wish it
well and I certainly want to give it a try.
1540
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill S-25 amends
the Defence Production Act. It indicates in its summary that
the Minister of Public Works and Government Services is
responsible for administering the new regime, which requires a
person to be registered or exempted from registration by the
minister to have legal access to these goods.
One's first reaction to the bill is that it might as well have
been written in Latin. We need a translation for just about
every sentence, because it is not exactly clear.
Sections 26 to 29 are repealed and replaced.
These referred to anyone committing an offence and making a false
declaration, which carried a $500 fine. The old act ended at
section 34. This one goes to 46, where it indicates rather
flatly a list of controlled goods, that is, prohibited firearms
and ammunition with a calibre greater than 12.7 mm.
It is moreover stipulated in subclause 37(1) that “No person
shall knowingly examine or possess a controlled good or transfer
a controlled good to another person”. Subclause 37(2) further
states, and I quote:
No person registered or exempt from registration shall knowingly
transfer a controlled good to or permit the examination of a
controlled good by a person who is not registered or exempt from
registration.
I shall try to translate these provisions from Latin into plain
English.
Then, in subclause 38(3), it is stated that “The minister may
deny an application for registration or suspend, amend or revoke
a registration on the basis of a security assessment—”. The
minister may also designate inspectors. In other words, the
Minister of Public Works and Government Services has considerable
power as far as the import and export of military materiel is
concerned. He also has absolute power over the designation and
selection of inspectors.
As we know, absolute power without the imposition of regulations
or criteria sometimes creates inequalities and opens up the
possibility for patronage and for finding jobs for the party
faithful.
That is the weak point of the bill. Is it necessary, in order
to accomplish our objectives, to give so much discretionary power
to the minister?
Clause 43, under Regulations, states that the governor in
council may authorize officers, directors and employees to
examine, possess or transfer controlled goods. It seems to be
mainly the penalties that are changing. Suclause 45(1)
states, and I quote:
(a) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a
fine not exceeding $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding two years, or to both; or
(b) an indictable offence and liable to a fine not exceeding
$2,000,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years,
or to both.
In short, this is a warning to those thinking of diverting goods
from their ultimate destination.
My comments will be very brief. As I already said at the very
beginning of my speech, Bill S-25 cannot be praised for its
great clarity.
1545
We would have liked the powers of the Minister of Public Works
and Government Services to be more clearly defined in relation
to those of the Minister of National Defence.
We would also have liked the minister's powers to be a bit more
limited, less discretionary and less conducive to unfairness.
Nonetheless, the tightening of controls on the middlemen in the
import and export of these arms would seem to us to be
appropriate. The penalties for offences become serious, where
before they were merely symbolic. I think that this will also
be a valid measure that we will approve.
This is important, because importing sophisticated weapons
requires that middlemen be above any tampering. In future,
however, bills having to do with national defence ought to be
much clearer.
Despite these reservations, we are prepared to support in good
faith the procedure for rapid passage of this bill, given the
particular political circumstances in which we find ourselves.
[English]
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to rise today to address Bill
S-25, an act to amend the Defence Production Act. At the outset
I would reiterate a point made earlier by a colleague that we
have some concern about this bill originating from the other
place rather than coming through the House, with its duly elected
representatives, and then moving on to the other place, which is
normally the process. That aside, the NDP will be supporting the
bill.
I want to give a bit of background information on the bill for
the sake of the people watching and listening to this debate. The
bill is an attempt to establish a new regime for regulating
access to certain controlled military goods or goods with a
military application. Persons involved in this kind of work
would have to be registered by the minister or be exempt from
registration under the regulations in order to have access to
such goods.
Bill S-25 seeks to address a situation that emerged when the
United States revoked Canada's special exemption from U.S. arms
control regulations. The bill reflects a new Canada-U.S.
agreement on co-ordinated legislative measures to strengthen
control over trade in defence related goods and technologies.
Historically speaking Canada had been exempt from many of the
provisions of the U.S. international trade in arms regulations,
known as ITAR. Permits for the export of defence goods and
services from the U.S. to Canada traditionally have not been
required except for a small category of particularly sensitive
goods and technologies, including those pertaining to nuclear
weapons, strategic delivery systems, nuclear propulsion systems
and submarines.
Most defence technology and unclassified technical data from the
U.S. could be exchanged freely between the U.S. and Canadian
governments and private sectors. As a result, Canadian and U.S.
defence industries have operated more or less as a single market
since World War II. Many U.S. companies established subsidiaries
in Canada. Companies on both sides of the border frequently bid
on contracts in the other country.
On April 12, 1999, the U.S. state department made unilateral
changes to ITAR that significantly narrowed Canada's
exemption from the licensing of U.S. origin defence goods and
services. Until that time Canada was the only country granted an
exemption under all but 5 of the 19 categories of goods and
services covered by ITAR. The changes required Canadian
companies to obtain export licences for 11 of 19 categories,
effectively ending the special treatment for the Canadian defence
industry.
According to the U.S. government the new measures were necessary
because of U.S. companies misusing the Canada exemptions and
concerns regarding the effectiveness of Canadian export controls.
The Canadian government denied that Washington's concerns were
justified.
1550
Beyond the procedural impediments, additions to ITAR caused
restricted access to technological data based on citizenship.
This is a very important one. Let us take note of what was
happening here.
Only personnel holding Canadian or U.S. citizenship to the
exclusion of other nationalities could have access to the
information or technology in question. The U.S. does not
recognize dual citizenship. However, many Canadian high
technology firms employ foreign born specialists because of the
skill shortages in these areas.
Moreover, our Canadian human rights laws, including the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, would preclude government
restrictions on the hiring of such persons purely on the basis of
nationality or country of origin. We certainly would have
concerns about that restriction being placed on any relationship
between the United States and Canada with respect to defence
production and the goods and services involved.
On October 8, 1999, a Canada-U.S. agreement in principle was
announced. It recognized a shared commitment by both governments
to protect against illegal retransfers of controlled goods and
technology from North America and to maintain a strong,
integrated North American defence industrial base.
The U.S. provided assurance that it was prepared to reinstate
many of the Canadian exemptions and enhance others if Canada
harmonized its export control list with the U.S. munitions list
and if Canada strengthened controls on these items within Canada
and introduced appropriate legal sanctions.
In March 2000 cabinet agreed to the establishment of a
strengthened transfer and access control system for certain
controlled goods and technologies. It directed the Department of
Justice to begin drafting the legislative and regulatory
framework conditional on a successful conclusion to bilateral
negotiations. On June 16, 2000, the two governments resolved any
outstanding issues.
Under the new agreement the U.S. agreed to reinstate most of the
pre-April 1999 Canadian exemptions on the transfer of most U.S.
origin unclassified defence goods to Canadians, including to
Canadians of dual nationality and permanent residents with third
country nationality.
For its part Canada agreed to establish a new regime that would
require persons having access to controlled goods to be
registered with Public Works and Government Services or to
qualify for an exemption from registration as set out in the
regulations. The new access control provisions include
significant penalties for breaches.
This is what Bill S-25 is all about. It is a system of
regulation and legislation that sets forth conditions to better
control the export and re-export of defence goods and technology,
particularly those of U.S. origin.
Under this legislation, by virtue of proposed section 36, the
new regime would not apply to most Canadian public sector
employees when acting in good faith in the course of their
employment duties or to any member of a class of persons to be
prescribed in the regulations. Proposed section 37 would make it
an offence for a non-registered and non-exempt person to
knowingly examine or possess controlled goods or to transfer
controlled goods to another person.
I understand that representatives from the affected industries
in Canada, in particular the Aerospace Industries Association of
Canada, have spoken out in favour of quick passage of Bill S-25
and the implementation of a new agreement between the U.S. and
Canada to ensure continued Canadian access to the U.S. defence
market and related technology.
While I have indicated that we will be supporting the
legislation, I want to make it clear that we are supporting the
legislation because we recognize that certain aspects of defence
production have spinoff effects beyond simple defence
applications, such as various satellite communications, rockets,
aircraft engines and navigational, gyroscopic, chemical and
biological applications. Quite often in the research and
development around these items there is a spinoff benefit that
goes beyond a military application.
1555
I want to add another dimension to this debate. While we
support the legislation, I have grave concerns that when we look
at the whole issue of defence production and the production of
goods geared toward defence we sometimes are talking about
nuclear weapons and other systems of mass destruction.
We know there is a lot of money in the defence industry. Earlier
an hon. member on the other side of the House talked about the
importance of defence production to business and the economy in
Canada and thus the importance of good relations. I sometimes
become very concerned that we might allow our concern about
business and economy to overshadow the need to work hard toward a
peaceful society that does not engage in guns and arms and the
production of those types of goods.
It disturbs me to read in the paper or to see on television a
boy of 12 years old being shielded by his father's arms to avoid
bullets and in the end being shot dead because of the conflict
between two nations. There is so much of this happening
worldwide. There is so much conflict, destruction and death. A
lot of it is tied into and enabled by the arms involved. That
boy did not die because someone was handling a toy. It was a
deadly weapon. It was probably from some arms trade or part of
defence production in some way or another.
So much of this is happening around the world. We have to
concentrate on building a society that looks at all the money
spent on defence production, that big industry found worldwide,
and on asking ourselves what kinds of things that money could do if
we applied it to help the homeless who sleep outside, without any
shelter overhead. How much good would that money do if we
applied it to child poverty, which is a curse in our society but
has existed for so long and continues to exist? How much good
would that money do if we applied it to training and other
programs to help the unemployed? How much good would it do if we
applied it to our aboriginal communities, which quite often have
a lower social and economic status than the rest of our
communities?
There is a lot of money involved in the arms trade and the
defence industry. I am in no way taking away from the fact that
every country must have an adequately resourced military to
protect its borders and engage in domestic activities to assist
its citizens. I am saying, however, that sometimes we allow the
economic interests associated with some of these industries to
overshadow and overpower the need to get to the human and social
concerns within our society.
I make that point strongly because I think it quite often gets
lost in the midst of debate. We want things to go smoothly so
that we can have greater trade, greater economic stability, and
more money flowing in. However, what is happening with all the
money flowing in? Where is it going?
I read a piece in the paper a couple of days ago, probably
the plane when I was coming here, about the fact that the term
millionaire no longer means what it meant 30 or 40 years ago. If
one was a millionaire then one was a member of an exclusive club.
Now more and more people, numbering in the thousands, can claim
to be millionaires, a lot of them at a very young age. The
article also mentioned that there are 300 billionaires in the
world.
We should look at where that concentration of wealth is going.
Much wealth and prosperity exists today but remains concentrated
in the hands of a few. A lot of that wealth comes from such
things as defence production industries and various other
industries where the money flows through big corporate interests
from one country to the other.
Arms are getting into the hands of children and women. I talked
to the Eritrean ambassador last night. She told me something I
was unaware of. A large number of the Eritrean soldiers fighting
in the war between Eritrea and Ethiopia were women. I asked
specifically if there were any child soldiers involved and was
told no, they protect their children. However, women are
fighting on the frontlines, laying down their lives in a conflict
between nations. What are they using? They are using guns and
arms off which someone has made money.
1600
I raise it here in the House because we are elected people. We
are elected to represent our constituents. We are elected with a
responsibility to try to build a better society, to try to do
something to elevate ourselves beyond the realm of the killing
and fighting we see day by day.
A good part of that will come about if we start to look honestly
at some of the things involved which we take for granted as being
a natural part of our economy. We can have a thriving economy
but we can have an economy that is based on things other than
weapons of destruction.
I make that point even though we are supporting the legislation
to enable a smoother relationship between Canada and the U.S. It
is better to have some controls around this kind of technology
rather than no controls at all. I really would implore us to
work for the day when the ultimate goal will be that we put less
emphasis on the production of arms and weapons of destruction and
things that kill people and more emphasis on the kinds of things
that breathe life into our society and give our society a sense
of purpose, meaning, and a true sense of destiny.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, I will
be very brief. We are not allergic to a bill from the other
place. I would like to pay tribute to the work done by our
party's team in the other place, which worked very hard on this
important bill.
Many things have been said about it. I would like to provide a
brief historical overview.
Discussions were held prior to World War II, but later, in
the mid 1940s, the U.S. and Canada decided to have a free
trade zone for arms in general.
It was not really an economic free trade zone. It was more the
whole American and North American continental defence strategy.
It was a far cry from the free trade agreement signed by the
Conservative government and developed, I have to admit, by the
Liberal government. I have to admit that.
That said, the United States wanted to combine continental
forces. Canada, in the north, was politically stable. In terms
of the continental defence strategy, with Russia being so close,
the Americans could ask certain favours of Canada, and would do
some in return.
The arms industry was allowed to freely cross the border because
it was exempted more readily than was the case for other
countries, and this arrangement benefited Canada's economy.
Canadian know how, which was developing at that point—they talk
about the Avro Arrow, which the Diefenbaker government
unfortunately dropped—could have benefited the Americans as well.
Therefore, Canada's technological efforts would have benefited
the States before others, because there was a trading market.
It was advantageous. It did change. Canada and the U.S.
are special trading partners in a number of areas, but that
started before.
But in 1999 the States said “Whoops. We are starting to have
some problems, including security problems”. I would remind
hon. members that it is not just with weapons, but also with
immigration. Last year, a bill had to be passed for Canada to
keep illegal immigrants wanting to enter the U.S. through
Canada. Because the Americans do not want them, the legal
responsibility is ours.
So we did them a favour, in return for which we got Canadian
visitors over the U.S. border quickly. That was part of the
negotiations.
In connection with Bill S-25, I wish to point out the
contribution of the Canadian ambassador to the United States,
the good lobbying by Canadian industry, and the excellent
historical co-operation between the two countries, which have
made it possible to design a bill and to convince the U.S.
authorities that we would do what had to be done as far as
security was concerned.
I believe that the Americans are going to be pleased with this,
as will our industry, because Canada has developed enormously
since World War II as far as technology is concerned.
1605
Once again, I congratulate those in the other place on their
good work. I also want to congratulate the minister responsible
and the government for co-operating with the other parties in
order to protect thousands of jobs in Canada.
The Progressive Conservative Party supports Bill S-25. We are
pleased to facilitate its rapid passage.
[English]
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question. It was coincidental perhaps that as my
colleague was speaking I was reading an excerpt from the press
that says “Canada gets duty free zones” and talks about Liberal
MPs supporting it.
In the case of my own province of Newfoundland, we are the most
easterly point in the country, the nearest point of entry into
Europe from the western side. We see what is happening in
Ireland because of their geographic location, even though it is
not necessarily duty free. Does the member think that the
creation of free trade zones would benefit specifically a place
so strategically geographically located as the province of
Newfoundland?
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, my answer is yes. The people of
Newfoundland and Labrador are used to working in their corner of
the country, to coming up with solutions and original ideas.
As my colleague from Newfoundland says, I am sure that we can do
so with government support. Will the arrival of a new minister
from Newfoundland help? I suspect so, but that said, the people of
Newfoundland must reap the benefit of these programs, just like
the people of all the other provinces of Canada.
This is why a regional spirit, the spirit of helping the
provinces, must be maintained at all cost, contrary to what the
Canadian Alliance members say.
We must keep the tools to ensure that in all of Canada's
regions, from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Vancouver, by way of
Quebec and Ontario, wealth may be spread around with the tools
that belong to the elected representatives of the provinces and
the people of the country.
Newfoundland is a province of the future, I firmly believe.
Things will go a lot better when there are a few members
sporting the colour of the ocean.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I hope to be very brief with my comments, but I
would like to make a connection here between an issue that I have
consistently been bringing to the House, that is, the issue of
Canada's national security.
This particular bill comes about as a very direct result of the
lack of attention that the government and its predecessor have
paid to the issue of national security in Canada. It is a
concern to the people of the United States, to the people
responsible for the defence industry of the United States.
We have to remember this. Whether we like it or not, the fact
of the matter is that in Canada we have the ability to have
expenditures of many types on many things where we basically do
not have to put out the money for the defence we are getting from
the country to the south of us.
These people of course have their own vested interest. We act
as a buffer. We recognize to a certain extent that we are the
meat in the sandwich between them and other people who would
be adversaries to them. They do have their own vested interest,
but the fact of the matter is that we as Canadians have the
ability to have a defence budget significantly smaller than we
would need if we did not have the level of co-operation we have
with the people in the United States.
1610
Secondly, they have a very legitimate concern and interest in
the transfer of technology, information and intelligence. Even
within the confines of the lower 48 states, the United States has
seen many of its facilities ending up being compromised by people
who have come into its own territory. As it tried to bring that
into focus and regain control of that, the United States
naturally took a look at the sources of these malevolent forces
coming toward it. Many of those sources were coming through a
very porous 49th parallel.
We must pay far more attention to the entire issue of national
security. Interestingly, this issue of intelligence gathering
and management has everything in the world to do with the
difficulties that this nation and indeed many nations around the
world are having with respect to organized crime and the fact
that in many instances terrorism is bought and paid for by the
proceeds of organized crime. Organized criminals and terrorists
have the ability to go across boundaries literally at the speed
of light, at the flick of a computer switch.
This particular agreement, which came about, I believe, in good
faith between our nation and the nation of the United States, is
a good example of how when we come across a problem we can work
together and work our way around the problem.
The necessity of this legislation is due to our charter of
rights and freedoms. The necessity of this legislation is due to
the way in which our country is configured and the way in which
we welcome immigrants to our country to be part of this great
nation of Canada. As we give those immigrants opportunities
within our society and as they in turn help to construct our
society, to build our society and to add to our intellectual
wealth and the quality and fabric of our society, these people
are building our society. At the same time, because of the
concerns that the defence industry was having in the United
States, it felt that this was a step away from its ability to be
able to control people who would have access to its very highly
valued, highly confidential secret information.
Our caucus had the opportunity, through the good auspices of our
defence critic, to have two or three meetings with the defence
industry while this was coming to resolution. I thank the
member, but I also thank the defence industry for taking the time
and interest to inform us and our caucus as to what was going on.
As the industry came to us, it was made very evident that there
must be a connection. There must be a management of information
among the solicitor general, who would be responsible for CSIS
and the RCMP, immigration, foreign affairs, industry and
foreign trade. All of these and more of our departments must do
a far better job of sharing and managing information and
intelligence as it is being gathered.
I am very pleased that between the two nations we have arrived
at this bill, at this accommodation. As I say, it shows goodwill
between the two nations, which bodes well for the future.
However, I say to the government, we must pay attention to the
fact that we had to do this bill in the first place. The reason
we had to do this bill is that the government unfortunately is
not paying anywhere near the attention that it should be to the
issue of information gathering and management in Canada for the
sake of our national security.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I really appreciate the comments by my hon. colleague who
said so much about the management and control of information.
1615
The minister of public works shall have the right, authority and
responsibility to identify people and give certificates to them
so that they have access to information on the goods and
technology involved in the defence industry. These people must
then ensure that the provisions of the act are met, and there
will be an inspection process as well.
Could the hon. member comment on the significance of the
minister's authority respecting the control of information?
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, this is part of what I have
been speaking about. At the moment I would say that we have a
tremendous number of chimneys of information, a vertical flow of
information from the information or intelligence gathering, up
through to the top, where the top is concerned about the
management of the vertical flow of information.
The difficulty is that the government is undertaking, on behalf
of the people of Canada through this law, a process that requires
more than a vertical chimney of information. We do not have any
effective way of creating it at this point, but we must create a
horizontal pipeline of information. In other words, there could
very well be information that the minister of public works should
have in his possession that is resident in a department adjacent
to the public works ministry.
That information, which could very well turn the tide as to
whether he would certify an individual for access, could be
sitting in the department literally right next door to the
minister and the public works ministry could be unaware of that
information. That is what we are talking about.
We are in favour of this act because it achieves the mutual
objectives between our two countries, but my colleague, the
critic for public works, and I are trying to drive home to the
minister that because we can have intelligence in an adjacent
ministry of which the public works ministry is unaware, he could
indeed end up certifying people who perhaps should not be
certified.
Within this government or the successor government, whether it
is the Liberals, the Alliance or whoever forms the next
government, the ability within government to access and manage
intelligence sharing on a horizontal basis between departments
must be created so that when the public works ministry, as in
this case, makes a determination that a person is worthy of a
certificate it will be making that determination on more than a
simple rubber stamping. It will be making it based on the very
best information and intelligence available.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is ready to give a
decision on the question of privilege raised earlier today by the
hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough alleging
interference with an officer of parliament, namely the
information commissioner.
As the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough noted,
yesterday Mr. Speaker tabled the 1999-2000 annual report of the
information commissioner. In his report the information
commissioner complained about the actions of the federal
government, and in particular the Privy Council Office and the
Treasury Board Secretariat, contending that these departments had
challenged his powers and denied him resources to carry out his
duties.
The member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough argued that this
interference constituted a contempt of the House and he called
upon the Chair to rule it a prima facie case of privilege with
the concomitant results.
[Translation]
I would first like to say that the Chair attaches considerable
importance to the concerns expressed by the member. I also wish
to thank the Leader of the Opposition in the House, the member
for Fraser Valley, the Leader of the Bloc Quebecois in the
House, the member for Roberval, the Leader of the Government in
the House, the member for Winnipeg—Transcona, the member for
Calgary—Nose Hill, and the member for
Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot for their comments on this
matter.
1620
[English]
House of Commons Procedure and Practice makes it very
clear at page 67:
—the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any
action which...tends to obstruct or impede the House in the
performance of its functions; obstructs or impedes any Member or
Officer of the House in the discharge of their duties; or is an
offence against the authority or dignity of the House, such as
disobedience of its legitimate commands or libels upon itself,
its Members or its Officers.
The Chair must judge whether the complaints raised in the most
unequivocal terms by the commissioner in his annual report
constitute such an obstruction.
There can be little doubt that the information commissioner
presents a colourful and impassioned case for the principle of
access to information. He recalls that his very first annual
report to parliament set as his objective a policy of zero
tolerance for government recalcitrance in complying with freedom
of information legislation.
In this second report the commissioner notes that he has refused
to retreat from this zero tolerance policy and he rails at the
resistance his office has continued to encounter in carrying out
its work.
Despite his unforgiving assessment of the situation and his
blunt annoyance, the commissioner concludes:
The Chair can well understand members' reaction to the cri du
coeur of the information commissioner, especially in the opening
section of the report entitled “Access—A Right Under Siege”
and the title “Mayday—Mayday”, but the very fact that the
report is couched in such bold language and takes such a strong
position is in my view evidence that the commissioner has not
been impeded in carrying out his work.
He may be frustrated by the attitudes he has encountered in the
senior echelons of government. He may even be outraged that the
government does not take his mandate as seriously as he evidently
does, but the fact that he voices those frustrations in no
uncertain terms does not, in the view of the Chair, provide
evidence of a prima facie case of contempt, especially when he is
able to present his report unimpeded and obviously in his own
words.
[Translation]
Members also know that the enabling statute, the Access to
Information Act, gives the commissioner various recourses when
he is dissatisfied with a result.
In addition, the annual report is permanently referred to the
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. When examining
the report, this committee will be able to consider the concerns
expressed by members with respect to these issues.
[English]
The committee can hear the information commissioner and his
officials. It can call before it some of those mentioned in the
report as less than fully co-operative and if as a result of this
study the committee concludes from the evidence that the report
does not merely document the frustrations of the commissioner but
points to a climate of systematic obstruction, then the committee
can report its findings to the House and ask the House to take
appropriate action.
Rumours abound of a possible dissolution. However, the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights has this permanent
reference and a new committee in a new parliament may proceed, as
the current one may do, and study this issue at its leisure.
Accordingly in this particular case I find that there are
various recourses immediately available to the information
commissioner and to all hon. members. I therefore cannot find
that a prima facie case of contempt has occurred.
1625
I would like once again to thank the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for drawing the commissioner's
views and his own concerns to the attention of the House. Like
him, I look forward to the work of the justice committee on these
important questions.
[Translation]
I also wish to tell the House that, with respect to the request
by the hon. member for Roberval for an emergency debate this
evening, the Chair has decided that such a request is not in
order at this time. It does not meet the requirements of the
Standing Orders.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I will take time to review your ruling in some detail
when I see it in print.
The other point of order that I raised during that period was
about the tabling of the report and when it was available to all
parliamentarians. I believe you said it was a problem of
miscommunication between the commissioner and the Speaker.
I wonder if you could explain that because I am not sure what
miscommunication means. It was tabled in the House. It should
be available to members. I do not know whom I should point the
finger at. I am not pointing it at the government. I am
wondering what went wrong there because that information, once
tabled here, should be available immediately, as I understand it.
The Deputy Speaker: I do not want to tie the Chair down
to an answer on this because I think we are looking into what
exactly transpired, but the best information I can provide the
hon. member with at this time is that the report was sent to the
Speaker with the request that it be tabled at a particular time.
The additional copies were sent to the distribution office with
an embargo until another time later than the time requested for
tabling.
It appears the document got tabled at a time when the
distribution office was not expecting to distribute the document,
so when members contacted the office and asked for copies they were denied.
I have asked that this matter be investigated. I do not
understand why there would have been two times but I understand
there were. I can report that far to the hon. member at this
stage. I believe I am correct in what I have stated, without
being more precise.
I know the hon. member would be happy to raise this matter with
me in private. I would be more than happy to do whatever we can
to see that this situation does not continue in the future.
It is an unsatisfactory way to proceed, in my view, and I
sympathize with the position the hon. member was placed in, but I
stress it was a matter of communication between the office of the
Speaker, the table officers of the House and the information
commissioner's office, and I believe two messages came from the
latter.
* * *
[Translation]
DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-25, an
act to amend the Defence Production Act, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. If you would seek it, I think you would find consent,
pursuant to discussions among the parties, to proceed to further
consideration of the bill at all stages, including committee of
the whole.
The Deputy Speaker: Notwithstanding the reference to the
committee on foreign affairs, is it agreed we consider the matter
now in committee of the whole and proceed with third reading?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in
committee, reported, concurred in, read the third time and
passed)
* * *
1630
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.
After further consultation on the motion proposed earlier today,
I would like to propose it again as amended pursuant to the
conversations between House leaders. I am only moving half of
the motion that was proposed earlier. I move:
That, on Thursday, October 19, 2000, the House shall sit at 9
a.m. and shall consider private members' business from 9 a.m. to
10 a.m., provided that any division requested thereon shall be
deferred until immediately after a division to be held on a
motion to concur in a notice of ways and means, to be proposed as
the first government order considered after 3 p.m. that day.
1635
The Deputy Speaker: Does the government House leader have
unanimous consent to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
CANADA HEALTH CARE, EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER
SOCIAL SERVICES FUNDING ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion 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.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to resume my speech on this important
bill, a bill, as has been noted several times today, that is
fully supported by the Canadian Alliance, although we do think
improvements could have been made in this health accord.
The health accord does re-establish some of the money that was
cut by the Liberal government over the last several years from
the health care system. What it does not do is enshrine the
health accord in the Canada Health Act itself so that stable,
long term, five year funding is available for the provinces in
order to plan their work and work their plan. That is a weakness
of the bill.
It is interesting that we have now passed two bills today in
their entirety. When there is not a lot of controversy about a
bill and it is in the best interests of the country we want to be
co-operative. We have already had a fair bit of discussion about
this bill and we were given time to contact the people affected.
All those things are possible. We passed two bills today that I
hope will get royal assent before the week is out. It is nice to
see that happen.
We think that business should continue to go ahead. However,
this health accord, which should also go ahead, will be
interrupted almost certainly by an election call on Sunday. We
see an awful lot of crocodile tears on the Liberal side. We hear
them saying “We have to approve this bill in all stages this
afternoon or else basically it will not go anywhere”, or,
“Desperate measures are required”, or, “We have to interrupt
the rules of parliament. We cannot follow the rules of
parliament”.
If there is desperation in the health care system, it has been
caused by the government. Any desperation on the funding side
has been caused by the cuts from the federal Liberal government.
In its efforts to restore that, efforts that we approve of, it says
we have to suspend the rules of parliament and pass all
stages today or else the walls will come tumbling down.
This bill will get passed. It will go through a proper
examination in committee where we can talk about it. Would it
not be nice to talk to the Canadian Medical Association for a
minute about this? Would it not be nice to make sure that the
way the money is going to be distributed is in the best interests
of everyone in all provinces? Of course it would.
The government is going to spend a good part of the campaign
suggesting that unless it can suspend the rules of the House and
pass it all today in all stages the end is near. Nobody is
going to buy that argument. Everyone sees what is happening
here. An election is coming and the government would like to
have all the legislation disposed of in a couple of minutes here
in the House as if the House does not matter.
Let me just talk about what the government is going to leave on
the table. It will leave the health accord unfinished. We have
said that we are prepared to come back next week and the week
after and get at it. We want to do this properly and get it
passed by Christmas but the government is going to call an
election and suspend that.
What about some of the other things the government has left?
What about the Financial Institutions Act? The banks have been
looking for Bill C-38. The banks, the credit unions, the
provinces, the consumers and other financial institutions want to
modernize the Financial Institutions Act. We are ready to go
with it. Let us debate it and get it passed.
That is not going to happen. It will get lost. The banks will
be told “You are going to deal in an increasingly globalized
financial world but you have to stick with the rules from the
last century and that is just too bad”. That is too bad for the
banks, the credit unions and the consumers, but it certainly is
not because the opposition is not willing to get on with
business. We want to get on with it.
1640
What about the changes to the Young Offenders Act? That bill
was brought in as Bill C-68 in the first session of parliament.
After prorogation, it was renamed Bill C-3. It has been kicking
around this place for years and it will die because the
government cannot get its legislative act together.
Does anyone know how many bills have actually received royal
assent during this fall session? I have the list here: one
bill. The government feels that it might get another one passed
so it might end up with two bills for the whole fall session.
This health accord is certainly not one of them. The government
could have brought it back the first day and we could have had a
good debate on it. We could have gone right to work on it, but
no, the government has been fiddling around with this, that and
the other thing, with no idea of where it wants the country to go
and no idea where it wants the legislative package to go.
It is as if the government wants to get all the legislation out
on the table and pretend it has all been passed so that when it
calls the election on Sunday it can say that it has addressed the
Young Offenders Act and that the financial institutions have been
looked after. Tomorrow it will give a mini-budget that will
finally give the tax relief it has always promised. The
government has not done it for seven years, but it will be talked
about.
I have some more bills here. The international boundary waters
legislation deals with the movement of bulk water sales. We
support that bill. Let us bring it in and pass it next week. We
will not because government members just want to talk about it.
They pretend to work at the business of Canada. They pretend to
care about these issues. They pretend to care about the health
accord. However, when it comes right down to it, what do they
do? They are all talk and no action. A title from the
information commissioner's lament about the government is that it
is all talk and no action.
We are going into an election without an act to amend the
criminal code, dealing with cruelty to animals, disarming peace
officers and so on. That bill is not going to come before the
House.
How about the bill respecting marine liability, something that
affects our shipping industry? We support that bill. Let us get
at it today, tomorrow or the next day. Let us have it in the
House for debate. We are not going to get to pass that
legislation.
How about changes to the immigration system? The Liberals have
been talking about it but it is not going to come. They talk and
talk but no legislative bill ever makes it through the House of
Commons.
What about the shipping and navigation bill? How about
something as basic as the criminal code changes dealing with
harassment, home invasion and the miscarriage of justice? We are
ready. Let us bring that bill into the House today, tomorrow or
the next day, sometime soon. Let us deal with home invasions
because it is a big problem on the west coast. We want that law
toughened up. We were to support that bill but we will not have
the chance because it will be left on the table.
How many bills have been passed this fall? How many have
received royal assent? One bill.
The government has brought a lot of bills. How about changes
to the employment insurance system? That was a priority of the
government. It brought in changes to the employment insurance
system but it was not serious about that. It should properly be
renamed “my hope to improve my chances in a certain region of
Canada act”. The government has no intention of passing that
legislation.
Why did the government bring in Mr. Tobin to be the minister?
Why did it go to the other place and pick a senator, an unelected
official, to sit in here as the minister from Nova Scotia? This
is not about the issues or the legislation. It is all about the
election.
How about the Eldorado nuclear limited reorganization act? It
is housekeeping bill but we could pass that quickly. We could
get on to business. Next week would be perfect. We could do it
in a few days and it would be all over.
We could deal with the tax courts or with Bill C-43 which deals
with income tax. Those are important. Let us deal with them.
How about an act to establish a foundation to fund sustainable
development technology? We could have a debate in the House on
that legislation but, no, the government will not do that.
How about the Manitoba claims settlement legislation? We could
finish that up. The citizenship of Canada act legislation is
something that the Liberals could talk about for a while. They
will talk about it. They have tabled all this legislation.
1645
If one could get elected on tabling, this government would win
in a landslide. It has tabled everything but does not want to
pass any of it. It is not about passing legislation. It is not
about a vision for the future. It is about putting little
tidbits out there hoping that enough interest groups will think
the government is serious about the talk so that when the
election comes the government can say that it is really serious
about the sales tax and excise tax amendments. One might then
say “Really? The government must have brought it to the House
early and championed it hard”. The government would say “No,
we just just tabled it”. It can claim 100% in tabling. If
tabling were a university course these guys would get grade A in
tabling.
They are not passing this list of legislation. They are only
interested in the election. That is why, when the government
shuffled the cabinet the other day—oh, was that just this
morning? I thought I saw it being foreshadowed for several days
in advance. When the government finally shuffled the cabinet,
when the famous deck chairs were shuffled, what did it do? I
actually watched it on TV. The government had four people sworn
into cabinet. Two of them have not even been elected.
Is Mr. Tobin the best idea for industry minister that Canada
ever had? It is not about that. Who cares about that? That is
what the Liberals say. It is not about picking the best elected
member of parliament to take that position. It is not even about
expanding the gene pool, because that gene pool has been well
worked over. It is a genetically modified Liberal gene pool.
The Liberals all come out like cookie cutters. They do what they
are told and they get a job like that.
It is interesting that the one outspoken member of cabinet, the
guy we could at least count on to have a bit of backbone on
occasion, is gone. The former veterans affairs minister is no
longer with us, as they say in the funeral business. He has
gone, not to the other place but to somewhere by the windows down
there never to be heard from again. Why? Because an unelected
person just took his place. In the vernacular, he is now sucking
slough water while someone else is slurping at the trough. That
is just what has happened. It is all about the election.
The bill on implementing the health accord that we are debating
today does three-quarters of what the government should have
done. Of course it should not ever have cut the funding to the
extent it did to begin with, but at least the bill restores it.
It is like kissing your sister: it's a kiss but it ain't
everything it's cracked up to be. It is a little bit, so we will
support it.
Instead of playing around with parliament like this, here is
what would be a pleasure. I look forward to this, because in the
byelection of our leader for the Canadian Alliance I was at a
public meeting and one of the big cheers he got—and he has had
many and he will get many more—occurred when he stood up and
said that if he was elected prime minister it would be a
pleasure, a week after the election at the press conference, to
stand up and say “The next federal election will be held on
October 30 of 2004”, whatever Monday that might be, four years
from now. Then we would not have to go through this charade of
tabling endless amounts of legislation for political showmanship
and brinkmanship, which the government is practising today, the
brinkmanship of “do as I say or else” something terrible will
happen.
Would it not be nicer for the government to say “We have a
legislative package to go through but another six months to do it
in, so you can plan your life around that because these are the
bills that are important to our vision for Canada. We hope you
agree. If you do not, let us have a reasonable debate about it,
let us pass the good stuff, amend the bad stuff and defeat the
poor stuff, but you can count on it”?
There would be four years to get through the business of the
House. The next party conventions could be planned around it.
The Canadian people could make their election plans around it.
Political activists who want to take time off work, and there are
a few like that, would find it good too. The House would not be
stuck in the position in which we find ourselves today, with a
whole package of stuff, of legislative initiatives, some good,
some bad and some correcting past wrongs like the bill we are
talking about today.
1650
At least then we will have it done in a structured way with a
game plan and a House of Commons plan laid out for all Canadians.
They will not have to come here three working days before the
election call and say “If you do not give us everything we want,
then it is the end of health care as we know it”. That is what
they are going to say in the days to come.
That is a lousy way to run the country.
What a better way it would be to have a legislative package that
the government is serious about, that spells out the vision for
the country and that we have adequate time to deal with in the
House of Commons. It would be like this: take it, win some,
lose some, have some free votes on some things, and at the end of
the day on a certain day four years from now the government would
go to the electorate and say “Judge the record, this is the
package that was completed”.
A half baked, half finished legislative calendar, like I have a
list of here, is not the way to be serious about dealing with
Canada's business. This is a lousy half measure, introduced in a
poor, ad hoc way that is not indicative of good government.
That will change and it will change when the Canadian Alliance
forms the government.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker,
during the hon. member's comments he referred to the incoming new
minister from Newfoundland and the outgoing minister from
Newfoundland. I wonder if he would tell us what he thinks of a
government who sends to the far corners of this House a minister
who always looked after the people of Newfoundland and brings in
somebody who has always looked after himself. What does it say
about a government that would do something like that?
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, it says quite a bit and
most of what it says is not too complimentary.
I do want to say, however, that the former minister of veterans
affairs is not exactly as pure as the driven snow either. A week
or so ago he was promising $10 million to move some jobs from one
part of the country into his riding. This is the very sort of
thing that we have been on about all day during question period,
that is, it is the wrong way to run a country.
I will say this about the former veterans affairs minister, I
think he is right. When necessary, and it happened throughout
his career from time to time, he stood up to the government and
said the way things should be.
On the health accord, as an example, it would be far better to
have people on all sides of the House speak their minds in a way
that moves the agenda forward rather than doing what they are
doing over there today, which is political brinkmanship. They
are going to say, and I heard it today from the Prime Minister
during question period, “If you do not pass this thing in all
stages today, then you are against health care”.
If the government would do everything we asked them to do today,
we would have tax relief, parliamentary reform, a justice system
that worked and equality for aboriginals. On and on it would go.
If the Prime Minister would do everything we asked for today, I
guess we would be further down the road, but we would have a
Canadian Alliance government if that happened.
I do not expect that he is going to do that. What the Prime
Minister is doing today is trying to paint a picture for the
upcoming campaign. He is going to hang his head in sorrow at one
of these press conferences and say “Woe is me. I could not get
it through the House of Commons because I asked everyone else to
suspend the rules of the House of Commons to get something
through and they said that we should play by the rules”.
All we are asking for is that the government play by the rules.
Let us get this thing done, but we can finish it next week. There
is no panic about it. Everybody knows it will go ahead. We are
all going to support it. I hope that today it will at least get
through second reading. There is no reason we cannot finish this
bill and finish it easily next week.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we get to the
next questioner, for a moment I did not realize what bill we were
on. This is Bill C-45, the health bill, so it would not be a bad
idea to once in a while touch on the content of the bill,
particularly in questions and comments.
1655
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, for the member for Fraser
Valley, within the context of health care spending, while other
countries are using their taxation policy as a lever for economic
growth, our current government is content with the status quo.
The status quo gives Canada the dubious distinction of having the
highest personal income tax rate in the seven most industrialized
countries and the second highest corporate taxes in the OECD.
Even the Liberal government's spending priorities do not rank
any better. In fact, its own pollster, Pollara, revealed that in
a recent survey of 5,300 Canadians, 73% of those polled thought
the government was spending on the wrong priorities. We
certainly have to look at the fact that without the EI surplus
there would be a deficit of $6.8 billion in both 1999-2000 and
2000-01. It is about misplaced priorities: wise health care
funding versus the current Liberal administration.
The health care bill is before us today. We must realize that
any budget surplus comes not from the government but at the
expense of overtaxed Canadians. What should we be doing here
instead of rushing this kind of spending bill through the House
at the last minute, at the dying end of parliament?
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, it is all about
priorities. When we talk about balancing the budget, it is balancing the
budget at what level of taxation? That is a good debate to have.
We could have it here in the House. Maybe it will start tomorrow
when the minister makes his statement. He is going to say that
revenues are higher than expected so Liberals are going to find
ways to spend it. It is the old story. The government takes our
money. We send our money to Ottawa, the government deducts 50%
for handling and then spends it on pork-barrel projects we never
asked for. That is the government's idea of management.
What we have said is that government has a legitimate role but
it should be majoring in the majors, such as health care funding,
research and development, higher education and certainly
encouraging common education throughout the provinces as well.
It was interesting to note the comments of the member when he
talked about the EI surplus. On the EI surplus there was just a
little thing the government passed the other day, the tricky
dicky move of the week. The government passed a little order on
the government side that said the EI surplus belongs to the
government, that EI surplus the EI commissioner says should be
given back to the workers and the employers who contributed to
the EI plan in benefits and in reduced rates of levies against
employers, that combination. Instead the government says that it
has just changed the rules and that it now owns the surplus.
It is just gone. The surplus just went into never-never land.
To be used where? We will find out about some of it from the
finance minister tomorrow. Tomorrow the finance minister will
tell us that he has extra money. Some of it will be from the EI
surplus. It is interesting how the government says that all this
extra money from the high level of taxation has given it a
surplus. The government says it will give us back a little of it
in tax relief but then it has a whole bunch of government
programs.
Let us not forget the health accord, because the government is
going to mention the health accord in every other breath for the
rest of time, I would say, as if it is new money. The government
has that health accord but is forgetting to mention that the
taxation level of personal income tax in Canada is the highest in
the G-7. Have a nice day. I wonder why 65,000 Canadians left
Canada last year primarily for the United States and a fairer tax
regime.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague read out a
number of bills that the government has introduced but has done
nothing about.
I would like to ask my hon. colleague if he is aware of the
various advertising programs that the government has gone through
in the last three months, namely, a little booklet that went out
to all seniors telling them about all the wonderful things the
Liberal government has done. I wonder whether or not some of the
tabled bills that have not been passed and have not gone through
the system have been alluded to in that little booklet. I wonder
also about the cost of that little booklet. I am also wondering
about the cost of the $8 million ad campaign telling Canadians
how wonderful the government is for solving the health care
problems that it created. Are these costs also incurred through
this multi-list of tabled bills that the government has put
forth?
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if we will
ever know the costs in this parliament because of course those
costs will no doubt be picked up by the auditor general in the
next parliament. I expect that in the next parliament the
auditor general is going to say that he has reviewed the spending
bulge that took place during the pre-election period and that the
advertising budget of the federal government suddenly had a giant
need to communicate to Canadians in the month and a half
preceding the federal election.
It was practically a cosmic force that forced the Liberals to
spend $8 million to advertise the Canada health accord that has
not yet passed the House of Commons. However, that never stops
the government. It spent $8 million to tell Canadians what we
all read in the newspaper. It is all couched in terms that the
government loves us and the government is here to help us. It is
one of those things that no one really believes.
1700
It was the same thing with the booklet that perhaps 30 million
people got in the mail telling them about the 1-800 number they
could phone if they had a problem with the government, because the
government loved them.
I would expect that in the next parliament the auditor general
will talk not just about the March madness, which is the spending
that occurs every March when the government departments all have
to feather their nests, but he will also talk about the little
spending splurge of millions of dollars that the advertising
department of the federal Government of Canada spent telling
Canadians what they already knew from newspaper reports. That
will be a shame. That money should have been spent on health
care, education and research.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-45, the
bill dealing with health care funding.
The bill would ratify and implement the deal between the
provinces and the federal government. We respect the fact that
the provinces did reach an agreement with the federal government
to increase funding and we support that. The Canadian Alliance
supports increasing funding for health care, but we do not
pretend that will solve the problem with health care. We do not
believe that is the case.
Just because we support the bill does not mean that we will just
let it pass all in one day. The Prime Minister in question
period today said that if the bill did not pass by Friday,
because the opposition wanted to talk about it or maybe some
government MPs wanted to talk about it, then we were against
health care. That is not the case.
Opposition members and government members want to speak on the
bill because we have things we want to say on health care. We
want to make the point that more money will not completely solve
the problem. We want to make the point that the amount of money
the government has agreed to put back into health care through
the legislation and through its agreement with the provinces will
not restore health funding by the amount it has cut over the last
few years. It is absolutely absurd for the Prime Minister to say
that if we do not agree with the bill and if we do not pass it
immediately then we are against health care.
I remind the Prime Minister of a few facts about the
legislation. One fact is that a bill of this magnitude has
received less than six hours of debate in the House. Yet the
Prime Minister said that if we did not pass it today we were
against health care. The Prime Minister really does not
understand the democratic process. He does not understand that
the House is a place for debate. This House is a place where we
should bring out different views on issues, especially on
important issues like health care.
Debate on the bill was first called for on October 5. This was
less than three and a half years into the government's mandate.
The government has been in place for seven years. Yet the Prime
Minister said if we did not let this pass we were against health
care. We will tell that to Canadians. That is not right.
The Prime Minister is asking for the members of the House to break
the rules of the House. That is what he called for in question
period today.
That is not right. We should have time to talk about the bill.
We should not just pass it on through. We should give Canadians
a chance to know what this piece of legislation is about.
1705
The legislation is about ratifying the provincial-federal
agreement on health care. It is about returning only part of the
funding that the government reduced over its seven year mandate.
It is not as wonderful a thing as the government makes it out to
be. There is no increase in funding. This only returns part of
the funding that the government cut over the past few years.
Does that mean we will hold up this legislation? Absolutely
not. In fact, as far as I am concerned we can allow this to pass
second reading in the next few minutes and get on to the rest of
the process.
There is no reason that we cannot pass this bill over the next
few weeks. We do not want to hold it up. We respect the fact
that the provinces have reached an agreement with the federal
government. The legislation would ratify the agreement so that
the money could be paid out, but we are looking for proper debate
on the issue.
It is ironic that the Prime Minister said that if we did not
agree to pass this legislation immediately we were somehow
against health care. If we look at the government's legislative
calendar for the next three weeks, Bill C-45 is not even on the
legislative calendar. That is the level of priority the Prime
Minister gives to this piece of legislation. If the Prime
Minister feels that the bill is important, as I think it is, and
wants the bill to be dealt with in a quick fashion, then he
should talk to the House leader and get him to put it on the
legislative calendar as a top priority item. He has not done
that.
Again, we are here to talk about ratifying this deal. Does the
Canadian Alliance support passing Bill C-45? Yes, we do. We
believe that restoring some of the funding which the Liberals cut
from the provinces to fund health care is the right thing to do.
We say they should restore all of the funding that they cut from
the provinces over the past seven years of their mandate. We say
this deal is not good enough. We say it is only a start.
When we form the government it will only be a start. We will
not only focus on funding, we will focus on actual solutions to
the problems in health care. We respect the jurisdiction of the
provinces in health care. Under the Canadian constitution the
provinces have jurisdiction over health care. We also respect
the Canada Health Act.
Today in question period, the Leader of the Opposition
said “Let us add a sixth pillar to the Canada Health Act”.
That pillar would be guaranteed funding for the provinces. The
provinces could then rely on getting a certain level of funding
committed to and guaranteed by the federal government so that the
federal government could not decide some time in the future to
cut back, slash and burn health care funding. That is what the
Liberals have done over the past seven years. We want a sixth
pillar to health care which says we will guarantee funding over
the long run.
How many Canadians know that when medicare was first agreed to
back in the 1960s, the level of funding of the federal government
was more than 50%? The provinces signed onto the deal because
the federal government was committed to this level of funding.
Have successive Liberal and Conservative governments respected
that commitment? No, they have not. Now the federal government
only funds somewhere around 13% of the cost of health care. It
has absolutely reneged on the deal that a Liberal government
committed to back in the sixties.
1710
The Liberals reneged on the deal that the Liberal government
committed to in the sixties. They reneged on the commitment to
the Canadian people and to the premiers of the provinces back
when the provinces agreed to publicly fund health care. That is
just not right. That is why the Leader of the Opposition today
stood in the House and said “Let us put that sixth pillar of
health care in place”, and that would be—
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt my
friend's comments on health care but I think he made a serious
error in saying that only 13% was covered by the federal
government. Surely his notes must be incorrect.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That was a sneaky
point of order.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I respect the comment of
the hon. member from the New Democratic Party. He is absolutely
right. In fact the level is not 13%. It is only 11% right now.
It will be 13% if this bill passes and if that funding is
actually put in place. I am sure that is what the member was
referring to. I was using rough figures and I know the reality
is even worse than the picture I had painted.
It was really not a point of order and I appreciate your
decision on that, Mr. Speaker. I will try to get back to my
presentation now.
The Canadian Alliance really does respect provincial
jurisdiction. We think that when the provinces come up with an
idea within the Canada Health Act that will improve health care
they should be listened to. I think every province probably has
an idea that it can implement in its own province that will
improve our health care system. I do not think the federal
government has all the good ideas when it comes to health care.
I hear a lot of heckling from across the floor. It truly is the
arrogance showing through, with the Prime Minister, in his
arrogance, saying “This is our bill and you should just pass
it”. We saw that in question period. Now we see the members
across the floor showing their arrogance and not even allowing us
to make our points on the issue. What they are saying in effect
is that they have all the answers, that they are right, that they
may have slashed health care funding over the last seven years
but what they want to do now is to restore part of that, and that
they are heroes for doing so.
Mr. Joe Jordan: What the member has dribbled over the
airwaves is nonsense. It is arrogance. He has no respect for
the Canadian people if he believes that they are going to believe
what he put out.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: The hon. member across the floor
really ought to listen a little. He could learn something. It
is really quite difficult for me to make my presentation with
that kind of interference from across the floor.
This arrogance flows way beyond this piece of legislation. Let
us talk a little about the Prime Minister's record—
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Would you ask the member for Lakeland whether it is his intention
to not allow the bill to proceed and to not allow the bill to be
presented by this Friday to the other chamber so that we can
reflect the will of the premiers and the Prime Minister as they
have indicated in the agreement of September?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That also is not a
point of order but it was an interesting way to get a point of
view injected into the debate.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, it is that kind of
arrogance that we have seen from the government for some time
now.
He stands and says “If you are not going to pass this by Friday
then you are just not doing the right thing”. Why Friday? I
think we ought to talk about this. We ought to have the debate
on it. We could probably get this through the House in the next
two or three weeks. I do not see a problem. Certainly that is
not my intent.
With this kind of rhetoric coming from across the House and this
kind of interference, I do want to point out the Prime Minister's
record in the House. It goes beyond the bill and beyond the
member saying that if we do not pass it quickly we are against
health care.
Let us look at what the Prime Minister has done. What did he do
on Bill C-68, the gun bill? We had somewhere over a dozen
Liberal MPs whose constituents told them to vote against the gun
bill. They were going to do that and some did at the earlier
reading. However, when it came to third reading what did the
Prime Minister say? I will never forget what he said. He was
in Atlantic Canada somewhere.
1715
What did the Prime Minister say? He said “If you dare vote
against our bill, even if your constituents want you to, we will
punish you. I will not sign your nomination papers the next
time if you want to run in the next election”.
Does that sound like a democratic Prime Minister? No, that is
not democracy. It is that kind of arrogance we have seen over
the past five years. It is just not right. We will not sit here
and take this kind of arrogance, these anti-democratic feelings
and expressions of the Prime Minister, and just let them go.
On the GST, the member for York South—Weston said “You ought to
respect the promise you made in the 1993 election to eliminate
the GST”. That is what the Liberals promised. The Prime
Minister himself said on several occasions that he would get rid
of the GST. Probably that helped him win that election.
When it came time to do something about it, the member for York
South—Weston in talking about it asked what happened. He was
kicked out of the party. He is sitting as an independent now.
That is the way the democratic process works in the House.
In question and comment period another member mentioned the
advertisements that are on television right now. They are funded
by taxpayers, not by members of the Liberal Party. They are
trying to say how wonderful their record on health care is when
in fact it is dismal. It is disgusting that they would use
taxpayer money to fund partisan ads saying what a great job they
are doing.
The brochures they sent out to seniors were disgusting. That is
not the democratic process working properly. That is not an
acceptable expenditure of taxpayer money. We will not stand by
and allow these kinds of things to happen without raising them.
In terms of Bill C-45, my colleagues and I are certainly willing
to let it go through quite quickly at second reading. We will
get on to committee stage and third reading stage. Let us see
what we can do to have proper debate on it and make sure that it
is implemented properly. That is all we ask.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to raise a couple of issues about Bill C-45
with my colleague from the Alliance Party. Let me preface my
comments by saying that I had expected by now we would be at work
during committee of the whole trying to improve the piece of
legislation.
So anxious was I that I almost amended the wrong piece of
legislation. It had been our understanding that we would be
using this afternoon to consider the bill clause by clause to
improve it as much as possible within the limitations imposed
upon us.
I share the concerns of my colleagues with respect to the haste
with which the matter has been put before us and the lack of
opportunity to have a comprehensive debate. Certainly it is a
very disappointing situation when we have had so little
opportunity to debate health care in the House to date.
We all understand that the legislation which implements the
September 11 deal at the first ministers level is a small step in
the right direction. Certainly there has been an indication to
all of us that the first ministers across the country would like
to see this step taken so that we can get on with the further
work required to improve our health care system. Being uncertain
about the time-line available to us, it is important for us to
put that on record.
Members of the Alliance have clearly expressed their concerns
about the bill. They have a platform document that does not go
much beyond what the Liberals have presented, which is a base of
$18.7 billion for health care. Certainly it is hardly
commensurate to the task at hand and needs to be addressed.
1720
Therefore, would members of the Alliance consider supporting our
efforts to try to amend the bill so that at least the base level
of funding moves beyond the $15.5 billion outlined in Bill C-45?
Would they work with us to ensure that the increase in transfer
payments allocated through the bill is at least added to the
base so that by the year 2005, when the agreement is over, the
base would have been raised to $21 billion? This would provide
us an increase in baseline funding and ensure greater
responsibility on the part of the federal government for the
overall burden of health care costs.
That is the amendment I was hoping to propose today. I am not
sure if I will have an opportunity in the near future to discuss
this in committee of the whole, but I would like to know, given
the previous Alliance policy statements and presentation of the
issues during this debate, if it would agree to support us in
advancing this improvement to the bill.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, just to answer the hon.
member very directly, we would certainly support that. The
Canadian Alliance and the Reform Party before it called for
increased funding to health care in every election platform we
have ever run under.
Although it is important, we do not think that spending will
solve the problem of health care. We have to find some new and
innovative ways to improve the system, to allow the provinces to
do that and not stand in their way at every opportunity. It is
unfortunate the member is one of the people who has stood in the
way of new ideas for improving health care along with the
government. That really does not lead to making things better.
In terms of her question on whether we would support their
amendment, we do support it. It is something for which we have
been calling. Let us go beyond that.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here
listening to this debate. Members on the opposite side talk
about the need to debate the bill, but I have not heard any
substantive issues debated or any problems, proposals or
constructive suggestions for the bill. It has been rhetoric.
The member for Winnipeg North Centre talked about her amendment
which does not call for any additional cash compared with what is
in the bill in front of us. The member for Lakeland agrees to
support that. It provides no additional cash from what is in the
bill as it stands.
Apart from being on television, on CPAC and whatever, what are
their motivations? While Canadians are waiting for a billion
dollars in a medical equipment fund that could buy needed medical
equipment if the bill were passed, members opposite discuss
abstract innuendo and rhetoric. I have not heard one significant
critique of the bill, not one decent suggestion, not one
substantive issue raised about it.
I come back to the member for Lakeland. If he is so concerned
about the bill, I ask him to give us one constructive suggestion.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, talk about crocodile
tears. If the member had done his homework he would know that
this amendment would increase funding beyond what is in the
current legislation.
The member wonders why he has not heard points of useful debate.
It is because he has been too busy talking to listen. He is
still talking rather than listening. If he would listen to what
we are saying he would hear some points which are worth bringing
out, which do add to the debate, and which will help inform
Canadians about what is going on here and about what we are
considering.
When the government came to office in 1993, federal funding to
the provinces for health care was $17.5 billion a year. It
gutted that so that in 1994 it cut funding to $14.5 billion a
year with the plan it implemented. That is what his government
did. Where has he been for the last seven years?
1725
If and when the legislation passes it will return the funding
level to $15.5 billion a year. That is all it does. It does not
even increase it to the level of funding when the government took
office.
He has the nerve to say that what we are proposing will not
increase spending from what they are proposing. That is not
true. That is not accurate. I would ask the member to do his
homework in the future.
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have just a brief comment. When the member talks about not
listening, one of the main reasons we are moving so aggressively
on the bill is that the vast majority of Canadians told us to
forget our political alliances and get this thing done, get it
fixed. The member is also forgetting that tax points were
transferred to the provinces.
Let me close with saying why we want to move the bill forward.
We are concerned about their position. The member from Calgary,
the finance critic, stated unequivocally that he supported
private health care. Their current leader, while a member of the
provincial government, advocated private health care. As long as
we are in government that will not happen.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, where has the member
been throughout this debate? Why have there been no Liberals
speaking in this debate, or very few, until just now when
something they do not like to hear tweaks them? The Canadian
public is being told facts that they do not like to hear.
The absolute fact is that since 1993 the government has cut $36
billion in health funding. The fact is that this deal returns
only $23 billion of that amount. Why are these members not
standing up in the House and talking about that?
The member talks about tax points. Why has he not been standing
in the House explaining what these tax points are? I would
certainly welcome him doing that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee)
* * *
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—POVERTY AND VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
The House resumed from October 16 consideration of the motion
and of the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.30 p.m.
the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded
division on the amendment relating to the business of supply.
Call in the members.
1800
[Translation]
(The House divided on the amendment, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Cardin
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Dumas
| Earle
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Gruending
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
|
Manley
| Marceau
| Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solomon
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Venne
| Volpe
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood
– 215
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Johnston
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
Manning
| Mark
| Mayfield
| McNally
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Penson
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Schmidt
| Solberg
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Williams
– 38
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the amendment carried.
[English]
The next question is on the main motion, as amended. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the main motion, as amended?
Some hon. members: Agreed
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the main
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried on
division.
(Motion agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6 p.m. the House will now
proceed to the consideration of private members' business as
listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1805
[English]
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
The House resumed from May 18 consideration of the motion and of
the amendment.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to rise in the House today to speak in support of my
colleague's Motion No. 155 which states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should work
towards incorporating a measure of proportional representation in
the federal electoral system, making use of a framework which
includes: (a) a report on proportional representation
prepared by an all-party committee after extensive public
hearings; (b) a referendum to be held on this issue where
the question shall be whether electors favour replacing the
present system with a system proposed by the committee as
concurred in by the House; and (c) the referendum may be
held either before or at the same time as the next general
election.
I would like to congratulate my colleague, the member for
Regina—Qu'Appelle, for bringing this issue forward. The member
has been a champion both of reforming democracy and of bringing a
measure of democracy before the House ever since he first became
a member I believe more than 20 years ago. I want to say that it
is this kind of outstanding work by one member of parliament that
is a measure of what a person can do in the House and what can be
accomplished.
I think it sometimes has been rather a lonely battle to take on
this issue. I congratulate the member for having the strength
and motivation to keep plugging away at the issue of making sure
our democratic system is more representative and fair. It is an
issue that perhaps Canadians do not fully understand, but when I
talk to my constituents in East Vancouver and to other electors,
I really understand that people feel alienated and very far
removed from the political system. We only have to look at
federal election results and voter turnout to see what happens in
terms of people's alienation.
It used to be that when a federal election was called, 80% of
those eligible to vote would actually go out and vote. That
number has dropped. I believe in the last federal election it
was down to about 67% or 69%. In my own constituency of
Vancouver East it went even slightly below the national average.
Here we are today, in the House, poised to deal with the issue
of proportional representation and days away from an expected
federal election call on whatever issue the Prime Minister has
dreamed up he wants to campaign on, when the very issue of
democracy and fair representation has not been taken up by the
government. I welcome the opportunity, days before what we
expect to be an election call, to actually debate this issue.
Hats off to the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for having the
strength to bring forward and never give up on the issue.
It is important to explain to Canadian voters what proportional
representation is all about. Basically it is making sure
representation in the House of Commons is proportional to the
number of votes a party actually wins.
That is the basic premise and that is the principle on which we
are advancing this motion.
1810
What it really means is that if a political party wins, say, 38%
of the vote, which in actual fact is what the governing party did
win, it would get only about 38% of the seats in the House of
Commons. That is not what our experience is today. When we see
what our system really does produce it is really quite
astounding. I think it reinforces people's cynicism about the
political system.
I would like hon. members to look at the numbers. In the last
federal election the Reform Party got 19% of the vote and so did
the Conservative Party. However, because of our system of
basically first past the post, the Conservative Party got 19
seats and became the fifth party. The Reform Party, still based
on the same kind of support within the Canadian electorate, got
60 seats and became the official opposition.
In terms of the other two political parties, the Bloc Quebecois
and the NDP each got approximately 11% of the vote in the last
federal election. What was produced in the House was
astoundingly different. The Bloc Quebecois got 44 seats in the
House and the NDP got 21 seats.
I think Canadians understand but they may not have thought it
through in terms of the actual formula used. It begs the
question is this what democracy is about? Is this what
representation means? To the hon. member who said yes, that is
what it is about, I say he is dead wrong.
If we look at every other developed country in the western world
there is some proportional representation. Judy Rebick, a
well-known commentator on CBC, wrote in her column in May 2000,
when this motion was first introduced, that Canada is probably the
least democratic country in the developed world when it comes to
elections. Democracy is defined in the dictionary as majority
rule, and yet in all of Canadian history only two federal
governments have actually won a majority of votes. I agree with
her view. We are way overdue for a political debate on this
issue. Astoundingly it has not been debated for over 75 years.
When I came to the House as a newly elected member of parliament
I had strong ideals, which I still have, about working for my
constituents and making a difference in this place. I am sure
all 301 members of parliament feel that way. However, when we
look at the system under which we operate and see how it is
systemically designed to reinforce establishment party rule, I
really think we have to challenge that status quo. We have to
say to ourselves and to Canadians that if we believe in democracy
and true representation of what people are actually voting, we
must have the courage to stand and change that system and move to
a system of proportional representation where people can ensure
that every vote counts.
That is precisely what the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle has
designed this motion to do, to ensure that the voices of
Canadians, no matter where they are in the country, are actually
reflected in the House of Commons representation.
The motion actually talks about establishing an all party
committee. I suggest that this is a very important element. My
entire last community householder addressed the idea in “It's
About Democracy”. I talked about voting, the importance of the
right to vote, and how in many places people have died for the
right to vote. I actually included a whole section on
proportional representation to get people's feedback.
I have been amazed by the interest and the feedback from people
who say they want to know more about it and how they can make
sure it happens.
1815
We are days away from an election based on the old established
rules. As a consequence most people will be silent. Their votes
will not be counted in a truly representational way.
As members of the House we have the opportunity to say we are
willing to look at this issue, to make our parliament democratic
and to make our voting system democratic. The 75 years of
silence on this issue, other than the work our hon. member has
done, is far too long to wait for true democracy.
I call on all members of the House to support the motion. At
least let us have a good debate on it to see what kind of support
there is from the public, because I think it is there.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I make the observation at the beginning
that the reason why this has not been debated in the last 75
years is that the debate concluded 75 years ago with the
conclusion that proportional representation is not anywhere near
as democratic or efficient for democratic societies as what we do
have in Canada, which is the first past the post constituency
system.
I observe that the three most powerful democracies in the world,
the three most efficient democracies in the world, the three
democracies of which at least two of them have the greatest land
masses in the world, have the simple plurality system that we
inherited from the British parliamentary system.
If we compare proportional representation around the world, the
majority of countries that have that type of system, which
basically involves a party leader being able to name people to
seats based on the percentage of votes his parties received, we
will find by and large that the countries whose democracies work
most inefficiently and with the greatest amount of difficulty are
those that have proportional representation.
There is a reason for this. There is a very clear reason.
Proportional representation is great in theory but terrible in
practice. The reason is that in the end it so slices up the
result of an election that very rarely do we have anything but a
minority government and too often we have a situation where not
only do we have a minority government but the balance of power is
controlled by a very few.
I point out that Israel, which is currently in the news right
now, is a classic case of proportional representation. What
happens is that a legislative assembly or a parliament is
fractured among many parties. What constantly happens is that no
single party can get enough of the seats by proportional
representation, percentage of the vote, to form a government. In
the end, very small parties, often parties with very extremist
agendas, form the balance of power.
I think one of the barriers to peace in the Middle East, to some
extent, has been the fact that successive Israeli governments have
had a great deal of difficulty advancing agendas for peace when
they have had very small splinter parties, which they are
dependent upon to remain in power, that are very reluctant to
advance the peace process, as the current government of Mr. Barak.
I find he made a superb effort, but we do realize that he had to
come to some very difficult alliances to even bring the peace
process as far as it has gone now.
Let us leave Israel. We can go around the world and find
countries such as Italy and many others in which proportional
representation has led to successive governments that are
extraordinarily weak and have constant elections.
It is bad enough to have an election in less than four years
around this place, but some of these countries with proportional
representation have elections about every year, if not every six
months.
1820
To illustrate my point I do come prepared. I do have an example
that should strike great interest. It is the results of the 1997
election when the Liberals did form the government. It was a
very narrow majority. In fact the Liberal government only
received 38.5% of the popular vote but obtained 51.5% out of 301
seats in the House. So a government was formed.
The mover of the motion would find that unacceptable. Let us
just consider what would have happened had we had proportional
representation instead of the by constituency voting mechanism
that we have inherited from the British parliamentary system.
Here is what would have happened. I have a note here somewhere
that I made. Had it been proportional representation in this
parliament based on the 1997 election, two alliances would have
formed based on the percentage of seats they would have obtained.
Let us suppose that one of those alliances would have been the
Liberals and the NDP. The Liberals obtained 38.5% of the popular
vote. The NDP received 11%, for a grand total of 49.5%
entitlement for the number of seats. In other words, had the
seats reflected the popular vote, then the Liberal and NDP
coalition would have been entitled to only 49.5% of those seats.
Similarly we had the natural alliance formed around the Canadian
Alliance, the Bloc Quebecois and the Conservatives. The figures
are 18.8%, 19.4% and 10.7%, for a grand total of 48.9%. Of the
five major parties in the House, neither natural alliance would
have been able to form a government.
Where would the balance of the seats come from? There were
three independents. In fact if the seats had been awarded
according to the percentage of popular vote, enormous power would
have been given to the two independent MPs who were sitting in
this House. They would have had it in their power to determine
whether it would be a government based on NDP-Liberal values or a
government based on the more conservative or the more
decentralizing philosophy that characterizes the Bloc, the Reform
Party and the Conservative Party.
That is unacceptable. A country cannot be run when that kind of
power is given to so few. What we have in our system is not
fair, in the most literal sense, but it works.
When there is talk about democracy we do not simply talk about
what is fair or what seems good on paper. We have to talk about
what is good for the country and what is good for Canadians. What
is necessary in any democracy is that we have a reasonable
succession of governments that are able actually to carry out a
mandate, if not for five years or four years, at least for three
and a half years. In a system where there are two MPs holding
299 MPs to ransom, governments will rise and fall every six
months, as indeed they do around the world with countries with
this kind of problem.
There is another major problem with proportional representation
which strikes near and dear to my heart. One of the problems is
that in our current system the reason why there is a skew in the
percentage votes is that if I win in my riding and another person
wins in another riding I may win by 30%, 40% or 50%. It depends.
Nevertheless I win in my riding and I come to the House
representing the people in my constituency. It makes it very
difficult for the Prime Minister or any party leader. If I come
to the House I am not only here because of my party leader,
I am also here because of the support I have received regionally
in my constituency from my own electors.
1825
In the proportional representation system there are no
constituencies, not usually. In the majority of them there are
no constituencies. What happens is that once the party leader,
as in the case in Israel and so many other countries, gets the
percentage of the vote, he determines who takes his place in
parliament. The difficulty is that means the party leader can
hold his politicians together with an iron fist, whereas the
reality here is that the Prime Minister has to be on a certain
amount of good behaviour around here because he cannot easily
fire backbench MPs like me.
The reality is that he can dismiss people from cabinet but he
cannot dismiss people from their House of Commons seats. If he
does, he may do it at his peril because—and the hon. member for
York South—Weston is a good case in point—the leader may
dismiss but the voters may return that person as an independent.
The thing that I find most appalling about the very thought of
proportional representation is that in that kind of parliament I would
not survive 10 minutes.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker,
when I was at university, we had a debate on proportional
representation in Canada and we had trouble finding people
capable of justifying it within the system in which we live.
The Canadian parliamentary system, with all of its history,
cannot be improved merely by introducing a new way of voting.
What absolutely needs to be changed is the entire way the
municipalities, the provinces and the federal government operate,
and that cannot be done solely at the federal level.
I remember the New Democratic Party's talk of pure proportional
representation. Among my professors here in Ottawa, and they were
fairly leftward leaning, there was not a one who talked about
pure proportionality. Technically, it is impossible to apply.
Many impressive works have been written on this; I have looked up
my old reading list. There are some very good books on
proportional representation and a pure proportional system can
never be implemented.
I also recall that some decades ago a number of provincial
governments, a number of provincial parties, including our
friends in the New Democratic Party and the Parti Quebecois,
proposed proportional representation. I will not address the
Parti Quebecois, but rather the NDP. Some provinces are governed
by the NDP.
There are medium and large municipalities that are governed
by parties that are more or less left wing. I have not seen any
example of proportional representation. That simply does not
exist.
The other major problem with this private member's bill is that
the Senate is completely overlooked. They do not want to talk
about the Senate. It is like our friends from the Canadian
Alliance who do not want to talk about the sovereignists in the
House. They vote against motions because these motions are
presented by sovereignists. There is respect for democracy, but
that is another issue. The Senate is important. A few years ago,
some discussions took place and some proposals were made about
proportional representation for the provinces in the Senate. The
Senate has a historical role that is not, of course, truly
fulfilled. It must represent the territories, the larger
territories such as the provinces, and the regions.
Instead of appointing friends as senators, we could use a system
based on proportional representation to choose them. For
example, the Canadian Alliance Party, the Bloc Quebecois and all
the other parties could be represented in the Senate. Without
really changing the role of the Senate, each province would
submit a list of names.
That is one solution but, here again, we are talking about lists
and when we talk about lists it is as though we were
undemocratic. What the NDP member told us earlier is that
proportional is equivalent to democratic. It is not true because
it is up to one person, the party leader, to decide whose name
will be on the list. For example, in a riding, assuming we were
to keep the same structure, if I lost the election it would mean
that a clear majority, in a perfect system of proportional
representation, had rejected me, their representative.
That is not democracy.
1830
During the 1990s, when the number of seats in the House was
increased to represent Canada's demographic growth, there was
talk of having a percentage, 250 members, for example, elected in
the present system, and the remainder, some 50 members, elected
proportionally.
Here again, with such a high risk of a minority government, and
the set rules in the House of Commons on political party
recognition—a minimum of 12 members of a party must be elected
for the party to be officially recognized—the rule of a
proportional vote could not be used. For example, if six members
of the Green Party were elected, they would not have official
status in the House.
This is another problem of democracy.
The question of proportional representation must really be
examined as a whole. First, there must be the assurance that
the representative elected in a given region carries some
weight, carries some of the political will of his community.
Instead of proportional representation, could we talk of a
second ballot? Instead of proportional representation here in
the House, each riding could hold a second ballot. That means
that every member would have to have 50% of the votes plus one.
There would still be the risk of government inefficiency,
because the strength of Canada and the provincial governments
lies in the fact that when government is elected and given a
mandate for a certain period, and more often than not in the
case of a majority government, the government has a majority to
give it the time to introduce bills, to take major decisions and
to reach difficult decisions.
Could a second ballot or proportional representation not be used
in the case of the committees? Perhaps. It is done. In that
case, there is no list, but rather an ongoing system of
appointments.
Clearly improvement is necessary. I say this often. It is like
the Canadian constitution. The constitution is not just a
couple of pieces of paper we stick in a drawer or display in a
museum.
The Canadian constitution has a daily and real impact on the
life of every citizen, except that we do not have to modernize
it because people do not want to talk about the constitution.
There is no wish for a weekend constitutional conference.
If the country evolves, if people move with the times, perhaps
this piece of paper should be updated as well. Naturally, this
includes the role of MPs. It includes the way in which these
men and women are elected. This automatically brings us to the
Senate.
People want to abolish the Senate. Why? Because they say it is
ineffective. Someone was telling me that two houses were better
than one. In that case, the Senate must be given a role.
Perhaps it could perform the role assigned it by the
constitution, which also provides certain protections.
In the constitution, Quebec is given special status through its
number of representatives in the Senate. This is important.
What would proportional representation mean for the people of
Quebec? What effect would it have on the francophones of the
country? This has to be considered. We are still a minority
and will have to keep fighting to preserve our language. That
is where the Senate comes in.
As for the House, I must admit that we lost out a bit. In the
constitution, Quebec has 75 seats, except that there is no
section providing for an increase in that number, as Quebec did
not then have the right of veto that it has in the Senate. With
every passing decade, Quebec is losing political clout because
it is losing ground demographically. Before anything is done
about the little constitutional protection Quebec still has,
there will need to be a constitutional conference in a lovely
building surrounded by water and guarded by the RCMP.
These are therefore major constitutional changes and we need to
think of present and future minorities. We must think about the
role of the ridings, the role of the provinces and the role of
the Senate.
What this motion is asking us to do is to discuss things. That
would be fun, but the motion does not go far enough. There is
no mention of the Senate.
1835
It is conceivable that everyone could be elected by proportional
representation and that there would still be an appointed
Senate. Senators would be appointed by a government that would
not be able to stay in power for more than six months.
Our system is not built that way. It is, first of all, a
two-party system. There is a party in power and there is the
opposition. This has been the third time in Canadian history
that the opposition has been comprised of three or four parties.
It certainly will not be the last. In our system, like that of
Great Britain, the United States, like many major countries, if
one really wants to talk about better representation,
proportional representation cannot be applied to Canada at
present. It is impossible.
So I say yes to virtue, but also to realism. I invite hon. members
to look at what goes on internally. First of all, how can
improvements be made in the other place? We could put in place
certain improvements to the Senate without changing the
constitution, because people want nothing to do with that.
Unfortunately, it is a question of once burned, twice shy,
particularly in Quebec.
Let us put in place measures that will improve the Senate, let
us ensure provincial and territorial representation, and then
later on improvements can be made to what goes on here.
The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is challenging the House and
the government to make use of proportional representation. What
I would invite him to do is to first meet with the provincial
NDP governments. He might have more luck convincing his NDP
brother than his Liberal distant cousin.
[English]
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is an
honour for me to participate in this important debate on an
aspect of our electoral system.
My remarks will begin with some observations on Canada's
electoral system and tradition, then comment on the experiences
of other countries and point out some considerations we should
bear in mind on this very important issue.
Canada's electoral system is a model for democracies around the
world. It is a well functioning system with a long history that
Canadians support. Indeed, other countries have sought out our
expertise in designing their electoral systems.
As we all know, Canadians elect members of parliament through a
first past the post, single member constituency system derived
from the British electoral system. The first past the post
system encourages pre-election consensus building within parties
so they might present broad platforms to appeal to the majority
of voters. This also means that each of the 301 federal ridings
is represented by the one candidate who receives the most votes
in an election. That means that individual Canadians at the
local level can elect an MP and have someone from their area who
they can identify and contact on issues of importance to them.
Canadians have a tested election system that has provided us
with strength in terms of stability and consensus building as
well as local representation for individual Canadians.
There has also been debate on the reform of the existing system.
There has been little broad based public debate on possible
changes to our electoral system. Most of it has centred on the
possibility of a directly elected Senate.
In 1979 the Pépin-Robarts task force on Canadian unity proposed
that 60 supplementary seats be added to the House of Commons and
that these seats be allocated to parties in proportion to their
share of the popular vote. In the early 1980s the Quebec
government considered and in the end rejected a regionally based
proportional representation system.
More recently, the MacDonald commission in 1985 and the
Beaudoin-Dobbie committee in 1992 recommended that members of the
Senate, but not those of the House of Commons, be elected by
proportional representation.
A system based on proportional representation in Canada would
likely result in more minority governments, would make
post-election coalition building a major step in forming a
government, could give marginal parties disproportionate
influence on national policies, and could exacerbate regional
tensions by making it more difficult to build national consensus
among all Canadians.
1840
Such fundamental change in the electoral system would require
broad public debate and public support and possibly a
constitutional amendment, which I will comment on in a few
moments.
I will now consider other countries' experiences. A number of
foreign countries have incorporated proportional representation
into their electoral systems. Several points are important to
note.
First, there is a wide range of possibilities for proceeding
with proportional representation. Second, other countries'
experiences vary. For some, proportional representation has been
costly and divisive, and in some cases, abandoned. Some of the
advantages of proportional representation cited by its advocates
include higher voter turnout, more voter choice and more diverse
representation, with more women and minorities in the legislature
and in government.
However, a closer examination of the facts shows that these
advantages are in fact not as clear-cut in actual practice.
Indeed, proportional representation can be a complicated and
costly system.
Now we have to take a look at constitutional considerations.
Canada's constitutional provisions must be considered when
assessing possible changes toward greater proportional
representation. First, the constitution, sections 37 and 55,
requires that provinces be proportionately represented in the
House of Commons. Second, the Canadian tradition of one member
representing one geographically defined constituency would
probably be hard to change.
Any major public debate on changes to the electoral system which
considers a greater degree of proportional representation could
be expected to open up many other issues including: the question
of representation of aboriginal peoples; distribution of seats,
by province, by region, and urban versus rural; Senate reform;
and roles, responsibilities and accountability of MPs elected
from a party list. These issues suggest that a constitutional
change might be required to proceed with proportional
representation.
Mr. Speaker, I want you to know, for me particularly, that I am
very concerned about the distribution of seats by region, urban
versus rural. We should be well aware of the fact that it is
important that our rural areas in Canada are well represented in
the House of Commons, as they are today.
Particularly in a province like Ontario it is very important
that we continue to have diversified representation, that we
continue to recognize the different issues in northern Ontario
and in southwestern Ontario, the different issues that we have in
urban centres versus rural centres, and the different issues in
Burlington, as the member has just pointed out.
Every area has different issues and every area needs to have
someone there who can respond to those issues, represent those
issues, bring them to a national consensus and bring them to an
area where we can work together to resolve these issues and
define what they are.
There would be tremendous public debate on that very issue. I
do not know how we would resolve it to the satisfaction of a
minority of people who need representation. We cannot allow them
to not be represented.
We also have to look at the importance of provincial
representation and provinces, the distribution of seats and why
and how the constitution was written, why certain guarantees were
made, and we have to encourage development in those areas where
they may not have large populations, such as the Atlantic
provinces. We need to encourage and ensure that those provinces
grow economically and grow in population. It is important that
we look at that.
When we look at other countries' experiences, it just does not
hold up. One of the advocates says that it includes higher voter
turnout, more voter choice and more diverse representation of
women and minorities, but the facts say that is not happening.
There are not those clear cut examples. They are not there in
reality. In fact, it is a more expensive system. We have to
look at what is working well in Canada, at why it is working well
and at why would we want to change from what we have.
There is an opportunity after every national census to make
representations on the boundaries of each riding and to discuss
what should be included and what should not. Sometimes members
of parliament themselves will go forward to make suggestions that
would make their area larger or that would give their boundaries
a higher population because they recognize that there are
communities or centres of communities that need to be connected
and need to be together.
They need to be represented in a way that reflects the way in
which they live and work together. We cannot just put a line
down the middle of a community and expect them not to be insulted
by that.
1845
It is important that we continue to talk about and debate the
system but it is important that we continue to have
representation. I thank the hon. member for raising this issue.
I know it was raised during the procedure and house affairs
committee's consideration of election issues. I believe it
would be premature of the House to pronounce itself on an issue
as complex and far reaching as proportional representation or to
have a national referendum on it at this point in time. I am
therefore calling upon all hon. members to oppose this motion.
I would thank you for your wonderful job as Speaker in the House
of Commons over these past few years. I have very much enjoyed
having you in the chair and having the opportunity to work with
you.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Thank you for those
very kind words.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I am delighted to stand in the House of Commons to speak on the
issue of democracy.
I congratulate the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for bringing
forward this initiative. Frankly I am surprised. He has been
reading our book. Is that not incredible? If one looks at the
75 principles on which our party was founded and the principles
that now give us direction on how to represent our constituents
in this wonderful House of Commons, one will read, in item 74 of
those 75 guiding principles, the following:
To improve the representative nature of our electoral system, we
will consider electoral reforms, including proportional
representation, the single transferable ballot, electronic
voting, and fixed election dates, and will submit such options to
voters in a nationwide referendum.
The hon. member is really a closet Canadian Alliance member.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: My motion came before your book.
Mr. Ken Epp: The hon. member claims that his motion came
before our book. I rather doubt that. This happened quite a
while ago. This is very similar to policies to which I have
aspired ever since I was first elected.
What is democracy? That really is the question here. To me
democracy is that system whereby we reflect, in the rules of our
country, the will of the majority of the people as much as
possible. There are times when that is not possible. Sometimes
the majority of people simply do not like something when in fact
it is a necessity. However, in a true democracy, if we come up
to those kinds of situations I believe we need to be able to
persuade the Canadian people, based on sound argument, that the
measure is supportable. I have observed in my short lifetime
that in those countries where a majority of the governed do not
support the decisions made by their government the society
usually deteriorates. We see sometimes total chaos in those
countries.
What do we have in Canada? Do we have democracy? As I said, I
am proud to stand in the House of Commons as representative for
the people of Elk Island. In my party, the one I very proudly
belong to, I have a mandate to represent the people of my
constituency, whereas the other parties by policy have to vote
the way they are told by their party leadership. In our party
the rule is that when a clear consensus can be found among the
people of the riding it is the duty of the member of parliament
to represent the wishes of those people.
Contrast that with other parties where individuals who act
contrary to party wishes get kicked out.
They need to be represented in a way that reflects the way in
which they live and work together. We cannot just put a line
down the middle of a community and expect them not to be insulted
by that.
1850
Another thing that comes to mind with respect to a democratic
system is that we are so far from it. It is incredible the
amount of power we have vested in one person, the Prime Minister
of the country. Right at the grassroots level the Prime
Minister, as the leader of the governing party, can actually
choose candidates in different constituencies at election time.
It is not required that the candidate be the person chosen by
the people in the constituency. We have a number of situations
where people aspiring to run to become members of parliament have
been rebuffed by the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party.
They have been told they cannot run even when they have won the
majority of votes at their meeting. Instead, the party in power
states what people it wants. In some cases an election is not
even held. The candidate is simply appointed.
We experienced this in Canada just last week when the Prime
Minister effectively chose the member of parliament for one of
the ridings in Newfoundland. It basically gave the people there
no choice at all. He has been appointed to the cabinet of Canada
without even having won an electoral seat in this country. To me
that is not democracy.
The Prime Minister who chooses the candidates in the ridings is
also the one who controls the members of parliament and tells
them how to vote during each vote held in this place, that is,
with the exception of the odd private member's bill, where
members express themselves individually.
The Prime Minister controls the Senate. He appoints the members
of the Senate, especially when there is a change of party in
power, after a short length of time. We have experienced this
since 1993 when the Conservatives held the majority in the Senate
and when it served a very useful function, frankly. From time to
time the Senate maintained a bill was not good for Canada and
sent it back with amendments. However, after a while senators
retired or passed away. They were replaced with Liberal
appointees or liberally appointed. They now do the bidding of
the Prime Minister in the other House.
There is no democracy in that. The Prime Minister appoints the
candidates, appoints the Senate, and controls how they vote in
both Houses. One could say that is really more of a dictatorship
than a democracy. We must add to that the ability of the Prime
Minister to appoint judges and commissioners to all the different
commissions in the government. It goes on and on. We do not
really have representative democracy.
With respect to proportional representation, the specific motion
before us today, there are different kinds of proportional
representation. The model I like the best is the one in which
each constituency has a first past the post candidate. To me it
seems fair that the person who got more votes than anyone else,
not the one who came second or third, should represent the people
of that riding.
However, there is a better way to do even that. In votes we
should seriously consider having people express themselves in a
preferential ballot and have the votes counted by computer. The
person who has the fewest votes on the first level of choice
would drop off the ballot. Every ballot with that person as a
first choice would then go to the second choice. The process
would continue until the person had a majority of the people in
the riding. In that way we would not have a situation where
there is a minority member. Eventually he or she would have the
majority of the votes based on the first, second, third or fourth
choice.
The second model I like a great deal is the one in which we have
the first past the post system, as now, but also members at large
for perhaps each province. I do not think we would want to do
this right across the country. It would cause a bit of a
problem. However, in each province there could be a set-up in
which each province has so many members of parliament elected
from the constituencies plus so many at large.
That number could be used in the proportional system to top up
representation for each province. It would serve very well to
balance out the powers.
1855
Then the ultimate, and this was the argument from the Liberal
side, was that we would have a minority government. A number of
people have told me our best governments have been minority. In
minority governments legislators have to actually engage in a
fair amount of give and take, negotiating and accepting
amendments to improve bills. We thus get better legislation. I
think we would be much better served if governments had to do
that negotiation on the bills and motions they brought forward.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank you for giving me this opportunity to address Motion
M-155, which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should work
towards incorporating a measure of proportional representation
in the federal electoral system, making use of a framework which
includes: (a) a report on proportional representation prepared
by an all-party committee after extensive public hearings; (b) a
referendum to be held on this issue where the question shall be
whether electors favour replacing the present system with a
system proposed by the committee as concurred in by the House;
and (c) the referendum may be held either before or at the same
time as the next general election.
I listened carefully to the eloquent speech by the hon. member
for Regina—Qu'Appelle on his Motion M-155, and while I find his
arguments very interesting, I do not agree with his proposal.
There are, in my opinion, very good reasons to keep our existing
electoral system. That system is based on ridings, with each
riding electing a member of parliament.
This means that a member of parliament has a great
responsibility toward his constituents, who can vote against
him the next time around. Similarly, voters can get rid of the
government in office if they no longer trust it. The verdict is
decisive in the case of a majority.
Moreover, as the only representative for his riding, a member of
parliament is responsible for representing his constituents
regarding any issue that comes before parliament.
Under the current system, a member of parliament must take into
account a whole range of opinions. He does not speak only on
behalf of his party.
As the sole representative of his riding, he must try to correct
all sorts of wrongs and he must take into consideration the
interests and opinions of all his voters.
Thus, the role of a member of parliament is to fulfil the basic
function of any political system, which is reconciling a large
number of views.
We also saw that in some countries using an electoral system
based on proportional representation, it can sometimes take
weeks after an election before the government is formed. Also,
once the government has been formed, often under a coalition
integrating small specialized parties—not to say extremists—it is
not in a position to maintain the confidence of the legislature.
Electoral systems based on proportional representation often
require the establishment of a coalition between parties of
diverging political views.
A plurality system tends to lead to the formation of broad based
parties bringing together members from different regions and
linguistic and ethnocultural groups.
Proportional representation is likely to lead to a coalition
government formed following in camera political negotiations and
not as the result of balloting.
Some countries have realized that proportional representation
exacerbates regional differences and rifts within societies and
that the search for a national consensus on vital issues is
accordingly complicated.
Finally, in our electoral system, voting is a simple act. The
voter simply indicates the name of his preferred candidate.
This permits the reduction of the number of spoiled ballots.
The vote count is quick and simple.
Generally, only a few hours after the polls close, Canadians
know which party will form the government and which will form
the opposition.
1900
Of course, even the best systems are open to criticism. However,
we must not forget that Canada's political system is one of the
most stable and democratic in the world. It serves as a model
for many countries.
Our electoral system has stood the test of time, while remaining
flexible in the face of change. Clearly this is a delicate and
complex matter, which must be handled wisely, especially since
there is nothing to indicate real public support for such a
change.
Holding a national referendum on this issue is not warranted.
This is why it would not be a good idea to carry this private
member's motion through, and I would advise the members of all
parties to oppose it.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you
wholeheartedly for your excellent work. I am most grateful to
you.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Thank you very much.
[English]
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure to rise on the matter before us. When we work
internationally as Canadians on issues particularly related to
getting better representation in houses of parliament around the
world, it has been interesting to compare systems of government
and whether proportional representation can improve the lot of
women, for instance, in certain countries where the lists are
very clear that it is male-female throughout the
system.
We also have in Canada a fine tradition of very clear
responsibility for certain ridings. It was interesting that the
member for Elk Island suggested that was our first and only call
when it has always been my understanding that a Canadian member
of parliament is not responsible only to his or her constituents
but to all Canadians. People in the riding of Elk Island have
just as much right to call me. I hope everyone does not start to
call me. My staff is very busy.
There is the aspect that when I make decisions or think about
voting in parliament I also think about the impact of my
decisions and the decisions of the government on people in Elk
Island, men, women and children from all walks of life. That is
a very important aspect of our system.
While the debate is quite interesting and we should certainly
take the time to review whether our system of government is
working for Canadians and how to improve it, if people take an
objective look and try to avoid some of the silliness that we
have heard in at least one speech tonight, they will say that
Canadian members of parliament represent Canadians well, that
there is a check and a balance in place, and that there are good
reasons for our system to continue to exist.
If members look around, in 1993 this was the most multicultural
parliament in a long time. We had far greater representation
from the different founding nations and people who made up our
country, new citizens, people who came to Canada for the first
time. I am a child of immigrants. It is interesting that the
Reform Party, which supports the motion, has the worst
representation of women in parliament with just 3 of 50 or
whatever seats it has.
It is worth it for us to examine different systems of government to
see what works best in different countries, but our Canadian
system works very well. Another challenge in looking at
proportional representation is that there is no single system
internationally. Perhaps there are other ways in which we can
improve our institutions.
Certainly there has been a lot more support for motions. Just
today most members of the House voted for a Bloc motion, although
the Reform Party voted against it. There has been much more
liberty, especially on this side of the House, to encourage
members to live up to their expectations and the expectations
that Canadians have of them.
1905
Our system, as I said, has worked well. We have clear
accountability. We have a system where each of us, including the
member for Essex, myself and, I am sure, the member for
Regina—Qu'Appelle, has a very active constituency system.
We help our constituents on a day to day basis in our offices.
We have wonderful staff members across the country who take the
ideas from our constituents and give us the information so we can
do our jobs better. We are able to provide value added service
to them in being an advocate with various government departments
and making sure that we change legislation that does not seem to
be working effectively.
We have a good system in Canada. We have had a lot of
improvements over the last number of years. I can assure the
House that we in our caucus have great debates behind closed
doors and come up with a united team having great representation
across the country and a fine leader who allows us that debate.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the item is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on
the order paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
PEACEKEEPING
The House proceeded to the consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to the order
made earlier this day the House will now proceed to consideration
of the motion that this House take note of possible Canadian
peacekeeping in Ethiopia and Eritrea.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the Minister of
National Defence. I am pleased and honoured to have the
opportunity to address the House for the first time in a role
which I have now held for approximately eight hours. I feel it
is an important opportunity as well to address the issue of
peacekeeping.
The government fully supports the practice of parliamentary
consultation on significant Canadian military deployment outside
our country. In this context we are raising the question of
Canadian participation in the United Nations peacekeeping mission
in Ethiopia and Eritrea, known as UNMEE.
Before I discuss the merits of Canadian participation in this
mission I would like to offer a bit of background information. On
June 18 of this year, following two years of periodic and bloody
warfare, the governments of Ethiopia and Eritrea signed the
cessation of hostilities agreement under the sponsorship of the
Organization of African Unity.
[Translation]
These two years of fighting came at a heavy cost. It is
difficult to give an exact figure, but it is estimated that at
least 120,000 people were killed. The hostilities forced some
1.4 million people to leave their homes during a drought. Canada
cannot ignore the sad fate of these people.
[English]
The OAU called on the United Nations to play a vital role in
ensuring that both sides respect their security commitments. The
agreement further asks that a United Nations peacekeeping mission
monitor a temporary security zone between the opposing armed
forces.
The request from Ethiopia and Eritrea to the United Nations
comes at an important time for peacekeeping. The recently
released findings of the Brahimi panel point to major issues that
need to be addressed by the international community to ensure
that peacekeeping practices are effective and Canada will
continue to be in the forefront of such reform.
What we do in support of UNMEE is an important demonstration
that we are prepared to support, in real terms, innovative change.
It is equally important that we demonstrate our support for
Africa, underscoring that African states can expect our help in
achieving a measure of security for our people.
Canada believes that the United Nations should be central to the
maintenance of international peace and security. This belief has
prompted us to support, again and again, UN peacekeeping
operations. Canadians understand that for the United Nations to
play a central role in fostering global peace the UN member
states must step up to the plate and swing the bat.
Canadians also understand and demand that when our forces go
abroad in the service of peace they do so under the aegis of a
coherent game plan.
1910
UN missions must have achievable objectives. They must have a
mandate sufficiently broad to achieve those objectives, and they
must have the human and financial resources necessary to operate
effectively.
[Translation]
That is why, in this debate on whether or not to send troops
into Ethiopia and Eritrea, we must ask ourselves how this
mission will help Africa and how it will strengthen UN
peacekeeping, as well as take into account specific features of
the mission's mandate.
Since June, the UN security council, of which Canada is an
active member, has recognized the need to deploy a peacekeeping
force in the region in order to prevent the resumption of
hostilities. It therefore adopted, on July 31, Resolution 1312
creating the United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea.
This resolution authorizes the deployment of 100 military
observers with the mandate to ensure on site initial liaison
between the parties, establish the mechanism for verifying the
ceasefire and help with overall planning for the peacekeeping
mission.
[English]
On the basis of the assessment mission, the UN secretary-general
recommended the establishment of a peacekeeping force of 4,200
personnel; roughly 4,000 troops to establish and maintain the
security zone, plus an observer force of about 220 personnel and
associated support resources. The security council adopted a
resolution authorizing this phase on September 15.
It is worth noting that since the signing of the cessation of
hostilities agreement there have been no reports of significant
military skirmishes. In short, there is a peace to keep and both
sides appear genuinely to want the agreement to work.
Moreover, UNMEE has a clear and achievable mandate. Its role is
well defined and appropriate, and it will have the resources to
do its job right. However, there is another aspect of the UNMEE
mission that affords an important opportunity to bolster the
capacity of the UN to advance and effect peacekeeping in line
with the Brahimi recommendations.
Canada, in conjunction with several like-minded countries, has
worked to create a new rapid deployment mechanism, the standby
high readiness brigade or SHIRBRIG. The United Nations request
for Canada to provide troops to UNMEE came within the context of
deploying a SHIRBRIG battalion.
SHIRBRIG is a multinational brigade to be held at a high state
of readiness and activated as required for chapter 6 operations
with the United Nations. Reflecting our long held desire to
build a capacity within the UN to deploy peacekeepers where they
are needed in a timely fashion, Canada has participated in
SHIRBRIG from its inception.
UNMEE provides the first test case for SHIRBRIG. The proposal
before us is to send one Canadian company of about 400 troops
within a Dutch battalion that would go to Ethiopia and Eritrea as
part of a SHIRBRIG deployment. This battalion would be joined by
two battalions from other troop contributing countries.
As I noted earlier, as envisaged, an expanded Canadian role in
UNMEE would be as part of a Dutch led SHIRBRIG battalion. The
Netherlands has signalled that it would consider providing one
SHIRBRIG battalion on the condition that a reliable and
experienced peacekeeping partner would also participate in a
significant way. The Netherlands therefore approached Canada and
asked us to join it in a SHIRBRIG deployment.
I am pleased to say that the Dutch government has approved this
proposal and the matter is currently before parliament in the
Netherlands. Obviously Canada believes that the successful
deployment of a Dutch led SHIRBRIG battalion would provide both
concrete proof of the viability of the SHIRBRIG concept and
momentum in the further deployment of a UN rapid reaction
capacity called for by the Brahimi panel.
I would like to point out that Canada has already played a role
in the initial stages of UNMEE. Canada contributed one Canadian
forces lieutenant-colonel as UNMEE's chief operations officer and
a further five officers as military observers, but now the UN has
asked us to consider a greater involvement. The government
proposes that the Canadian armed forces provide a mechanized
infantry company group, a necessary national command and engineer
and logistics support, estimated at 400 personnel.
1915
This may also involve a requirement for an initial engineering
surge of up to 200 personnel to help establish infrastructure.
The Canadian contingent would operate as part of a Dutch led
battalion under the UN field headquarters. The headquarters
would have as its core the SHIRBRIG headquarters staff to which
Canada has committed seven officers.
Exact Canadian troop numbers would be determined following
further discussions with Dutch authorities and a strategic
reconnaissance mission to the area. Variables include the nature
and scope of Dutch logistical support, the precise location of
Canadian deployment, the quartering arrangements Canadian
personnel would use and the extent to which costs would be offset
by UN funding.
Therefore, endorsement of this proposal before us will allow
Canada to accomplish several things. First, it will allow us to
contribute in a meaningful way to regional peace in East Africa.
Second, it is an opportunity to demonstrate that the UN can
achieve its peacekeeping objectives when a mission is given an
appropriate mandate and sufficient resources. Third, it will
underscore the ability of the international community to support
organizations such as the OAU in developing African solutions to
African problems.
We will be in good company doing a necessary job for a fixed
period of time, and then coming home. Canadians should embrace
this opportunity to show we are serious about helping African
countries in need and supporting the UN's role.
I would like to leave the House with this thought from Benjamin
Franklin, who said “There was never a good war or a bad peace”.
Let us act as agents of peace in the Horn of Africa.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join our new Minister
of Foreign Affairs in discussing with the House this evening the
possible Canadian peacekeeping activities on the border between
Ethiopia and Eritrea.
The minister has spoken about the diplomatic efforts in the
United Nations and the Organization of African Unity with respect
to bringing peace to this region. I would like to further
discuss the matter in terms of supporting our interests as well
as our values as long standing participants in peacekeeping
efforts with the United Nations and around the world.
[Translation]
Peacekeeping speaks in a concrete and active manner to the
values most dear to Canadians: peace, democracy, human rights
and compassion.
[English]
Canadians have been and remain prepared to join other nations to
better the world, whether in Africa, Asia, Central America, the
Balkans or the Middle East. We want to participate in helping to
bring peace and stability in the world. This is in our interest
as Canadians to continue to help the United Nations to
carry out these missions.
Five years ago Canada completed a study on how to improve the
United Nations rapid reaction capability. A key recommendation
is materializing in the form of SHIRBRIG, the standby high
readiness brigade. The concept behind SHIRBRIG is to provide the
UN with a readily deployable brigade to support UN operations.
Its job is to react quickly to get a UN presence established and
then to make room for a UN follow-on force.
The United Nations mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea, UNMEE for
short, would mark the first deployment of SHIRBRIG. The core of
the UN mission's headquarters planned for UNMEE would consist of
military headquarters staff from SHIRBRIG. Canada has committed
up to seven officers to the planning element of this staff.
The UN force commander is expected to be the Dutch
brigadier-general currently in command of SHIRBRIG. We now have
an opportunity to advance our goal of enhancing the UN's rapid
reaction capability.
1920
Let me now turn to the mandate of this mission. The UN security
council resolution 1320 of September 15 authorizes the
peacekeeping mission to monitor the cessation of hostilities in a
temporary security zone along the border between Ethiopia and
Eritrea.
UNMEE would consist of up to 4,200 troops, including up to 220
military observers. The resolution also authorizes the
deployment for a period of six months.
The Canadian forces can make a meaningful contribution to this
mission. Our contribution would consist of a mechanized infantry
company, including a company headquarters and three infantry
platoons equipped with armoured personal carriers. It would also
have engineer and logistics support and other combat services
support units. It may also include a reconnaissance platoon
equipped with our Coyote vehicles. All of the equipment we will
be sending on this mission will be the best state of the art
equipment that can be provided.
The total number of personnel will be about 400 and they will be
there for a period of no more than six months. The United
Nations is well aware of our commitment with respect to the six
month timeframe.
The Canadian forces would be deployed within a Dutch battalion
and under the operational command of a Dutch battalion commander.
Canada has worked closely with the government of the Netherlands
on this proposed mission. I have met with my counterpart on two
occasions with respect to this, and the Dutch parliament, as the
foreign affairs minister has indicated, is currently considering
this matter. Our approval is tied to their approval since the
battalion is a joint effort.
I have discussed with the chief of defence staff, General Baril,
the risks involved in this mission and the impact on the Canadian
forces. While the military risk is assessed as low, the health
and environmental risks, including the threat posed by land mines
and unexploded munitions, are of greater concern. To better
assess these risks we are sending a strategic reconnaissance
mission to the area. Before the government deploys Canadian
troops on this proposed mission, the chief of defence staff must
be satisfied that logistics, medical and security arrangements
are acceptable.
I know that members of the House are concerned about the impact
of the high operational tempo of the last few years on the
quality of life of the Canadian forces.
[Translation]
As Minister of National Defence, I have made improving the
quality of life of the men and women in the Canadian forces one
of my main priorities.
[English]
I can assure members that we have taken this into consideration
in our planning. With the reduction in our personnel overseas,
from over 4,000 a year ago to some 2,500 today, the pressure is
certainly much less.
Having carefully weighed these and other factors, and pending
the final military advice of General Baril, I believe that Canada
should make available the mechanized infantry company group of
about 400 personnel as I have outlined.
We have a real opportunity and the capability to make a
difference in Africa. We have an opportunity to enhance the UN's
reputation as a force for peace and we have an opportunity to
build on our peacekeeping legacy. In short, we have the chance
to do justice to our words, our values and our policies. That is
why I ask the House to support the proposal to deploy the
Canadian forces to a UN mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I want to reflect on the comments of the chief of
defence staff. I think he spoke with some bluntness this week,
saying that the Canadian forces will have to cut personnel further and
cannibalize its own operations to purchase new equipment.
That is just to keep things afloat. Looking at the auditor
general's report that came out today, it is very clear that there
will be substantial reductions again in military capability.
1925
The government has a history of deploying troops and stretching
them to the limit every time a conflict comes up. One has to ask
whether it is the defence minister or the foreign affairs
minister who actually gives direction to the military on whatever
he decides should happen. This is not to say that there are not
conflict areas in that world that do need attention, but I am
concerned about our troops.
I am concerned about the number of deployments they have had. I
have not heard much as far as assurances from the minister that
those concerns will be addressed other than making this
commitment. We are in the middle of a take note debate but the
decision to send them has already been made, which does concern
me.
What does the minister plan on doing? Does he plan on
stretching the troops even further, to the point where something
else will give? The chief of the defence staff has made clear
note that there are problems with the budget as it sits and now
the minister is committing our men and women even further.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton: Madam Speaker, the hon. member
has once again misread the comments made by the chief of the
defence staff, or even the auditor general for that matter.
The auditor general has noted in his report that we have made
substantial progress in providing the kinds of equipment and
resources needed by the Canadian forces. The chief of defence
staff also said, in the same articles that the hon. member seems
to be reading, that we are more combat capable today than ever
before and that we are ready for these kinds of missions.
The hon. member should also listen to the remarks I made a few
moments ago in terms of the operational tempo of the Canadian
forces. We had over 4,000, a very high operational tempo a year
ago. It is down to 2,500 today, to a great extent because of our
rationalization of our forces in the Balkans.
It is at a much more manageable level because the government is
concerned about the quality of life of our troops and wants to
make sure that in fact there is a period of time between these
rotations, so that they are not being stretched and over
stressed, as we are all concerned that they not be.
While the Alliance Party only talks about matters, we have taken
action. We have put more money into the defence budget this year
to help make sure we do have the equipment. That is why when
they go to Eritrea and Ethiopia they will have the best equipment
that anybody could have, modern, up-to-date equipment. It is
because of the actions of the government while the Alliance Party
only talks.
Mr. Art Hanger: Madam Speaker, the concluding point in
the auditor general's report—and I believe this is incumbent
upon government to inform the House of exactly the state of our
military—is this:
In summary, there is a need to provide Parliament with a more
complete picture of the capabilities of the Canadian Forces.
To listen to the rhetoric coming from the minister one would
think otherwise, but the truth of the matter is that the auditor
general, as are many Canadians now, is very concerned about the
state of our military and the deployment of our troops overseas.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton: Madam Speaker, we have new
Coyotes, new armoured personnel carriers and new combat clothing
for an environment such as Eritrea and Ethiopia. We have
provided so many new things to our troops that it is a very clear
demonstration of our commitment to make sure that when we send
our troops there they will be properly equipped. Parliament is
being consulted on this occasion and will be consulted on many
occasions with respect to meeting those particular needs.
1930
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for
Calgary Northeast.
I would like to welcome the new foreign affairs minister to his
position. I have no advice to give him other than to read deeply
for several weeks before he wanders into that portfolio. As
somebody who is fairly new to this, I have discovered how
complicated it is.
I will not suggest that I am going to edify the House greatly
with what I have to say tonight, but I do want to issue a few
cautionary notes about what the government is proposing to embark
upon.
Canada is proud, and rightly so, of its record in peacekeeping.
As a Canadian citizen I am very proud of what Canadian soldiers
have done in their role as peacekeepers over the last 44 years
since former prime minister Pearson invented the idea of
peacekeeping. Soon I will be able to present a peacekeeping
medal to one of the people who works in my office in my riding. I
am quite proud of that fact and he is very proud of the role he
has been able to play as a peacekeeper in the past.
It is something that Canadians generally support. We like the
idea that Canada has played a very productive role around the
world as peacekeepers in the past.
That said, Canadians are rightly concerned about some of
the things that have happened in the past and which give us pause
when we consider moving into some of these new trouble spots such
as the mission that the government seems ready to embark upon,
the mission where we would essentially patrol the buffer zone
between Eritrea and Ethiopia, which is 25 kilometres wide.
This is a situation where there has been, as the foreign affairs
minister pointed out, tremendous bloodshed over the last few
years. There have been somewhere in the neighbourhood of 100,000
or 120,000 people killed and 85,000 to 100,000 displaced. In
some cases people are in jeopardy of not having enough to eat
this fall. It is a pretty desperate situation.
We also know that in the past when we have gone into the
continent of Africa we have had huge trouble in some cases. I
think of Zaire, where peacekeepers sat on the tarmac for a month
trying to figure out what exactly they were doing there because
seemingly on a whim the Prime Minister decided that peacekeepers
should be sent there. I think of course of Somalia. Who could
forget Somalia and the disaster that was? It spawned an inquiry
that ultimately never did get to the root of the problems, an
inquiry that the government cut short.
Most tragic of all, of course, was Rwanda. That was a terrible
situation. Roméo Dallaire sat helplessly and watched the
genocide that took place there while he tried to alert the rest
of the world to what was going on. Ultimately the UN failed him,
frankly, in that situation.
The reason I raise some of these cases is not to suggest that
Canada should not go on peacekeeping missions into Africa but
that we should go with our eyes completely open. We have
challenges that I am not certain the government has considered
yet. I do not think it has addressed some of the questions that
have been raised.
My friend who just spoke and questioned the defence minister has
pointed out that Canada has been involved in a lot of
peacekeeping over the last many years, at a time when the
government has cut deeply into our ability to provide equipment
for our personnel, at a time when the government has cut the
number of personnel dramatically. There were about 10,000 people
out of uniform in the last seven years and about $10 billion to $11
billion removed cumulatively from the defence budget over the
last seven years. That is a lot of money and a lot of personnel
to remove and still maintain the same levels of peacekeeping that
we have been maintaining. It was not very long ago that we
consolidated our troops in the Balkans because we were
overextended. It was hurting morale in the military.
It seems like we cannot say no to missions. We are just now
starting to get back on our feet. We are just now giving our
military personnel a chance to collect themselves and get used to
having a bit of time to spend with their families in many cases.
Right away again, though, the government is committing us to
another mission. It commits us without answering some
fundamental questions.
1935
We point out that Ethiopia-Eritrea in the Horn of Africa is a
tremendous distance from Canada. How do we support these people
when they are that far away? Let us remember that we do not have
the airlift or sealift capacity we should have. We do not have a
lot of capacity in our military because we have let our military
run down so much. How do we reinforce those people? How do we
support them? How do we withdraw them if there is trouble?
We know that there can be trouble in Africa. That is one thing
we have learned over the last many years. Even when we do not
expect it, all of a sudden there can be trouble. When we talk
about trouble in Africa we are not talking about skirmishes but
about the sorts of things that have happened in Somalia and
Rwanda and the sorts of things that happen today in Congo. We
are talking about terrible messes, terrible situations, so we
need to be assured that we have the ability to reinforce those
troops, to supply them and to get them out if there is the type
of trouble we are talking about. We have heard no reassurance
from the government that we have that capacity.
Next, as I have already mentioned, we are in a situation where
we are already extended about as far as we can go. What happens
if we are asked to intervene in places like the Congo? Are we to
send more people over? How will we deal with that sort of
situation? It is not clear to us what the government's
intentions are. Obviously this is something that is on the
government's radar screen, but we need to have that kind of
information before we can say yes. The government has said
clearly that we would not be involved in the Congo, that we would
therefore commit these troops only to Ethiopia-Eritrea. That is
an important thing, which we need to know. We have not heard
that yet from either one of the ministers.
My final point is that while I appreciate the chance to speak
tonight to this issue, I resent the suggestion that somehow we
are influencing the government's policy on this issue and somehow
influencing their decision on whether Canada will go. It is all
but assured that Canada will go.
The minister mentioned a moment ago that the Dutch parliament
will consider this. Maybe in that system members actually do
consider it. That would be a great thing, but I have a niggling
suspicion, which is borne out by past experience, that this
debate really will not influence the decision very much. That is
regrettable. A lot of people who are here have some valuable
points to raise. We would see this place full if people thought
they could influence the government's decision making.
Unfortunately they do not, and that is reflected in how many
people will speak to the issue tonight.
I will conclude my remarks with that. I urge the government to
consider some of the questions I have raised. It is for those
reasons that the Canadian Alliance is very reluctant to suggest
that Canadian peacekeepers should go to Ethiopia-Eritrea to be
involved in this mission. We need more information. We do not
have it. It is for those reasons that we would oppose that
action at this time.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, it is not just the discussion of Canadian
peacekeeping deployment to Ethiopia but other conflicts in the
world that have given rise to a take note debate in the House.
It is always interesting that the feedback from the government
side to the opposition and to the Canadian people does not appear
to lend itself to a true debate on this issue or any others when
it comes to deployment. The decision has been made, pure and
simple, so in a sense all we are really doing is offering a
viewpoint that will not go much further than the statements made
here in the House and which certainly will not influence any
decision on that side.
1940
I am concerned that the Liberal government continues to commit
our troops to overseas duty despite almost daily warning signs
that the Canadian military is on the verge of collapse when we
talk about combat capability. The chief of defence staff was
uncommonly blunt this week, declaring that the Canadian forces
will have to cut personnel again and cannibalize their own
equipment to purchase new equipment.
I want to go back to the auditor general's report, because I
think the Canadian people should be well aware of what in fact
will happen and what is presently happening.
We can talk about the navy issue. It is going to lose part of
its operating budget and will cut back on two Kingston class
maritime coastal defence vessels. It will retire minesweepers.
The air force has already removed eight of its 14 Challenger
jets. In addition, two Dash 8 aircraft were declared surplus. It
has called for a 10% reduction in infrastructure from its
component parts.
The business plan of the individual services for the 2000
planning year indicates that additional reductions are planned.
The air force faces the largest cuts. The CF-18 fleet will be
reduced from 122 to 80. Overall, the air force will shrink from
460 aircraft to 257.
The situation in the army has not been addressed yet. The army
has not yet determined how it will restructure itself, but it
could also face significant reductions in its order of battle.
That is the complete picture. Of course there is no indication
of downsizing, but that is on its way also.
Why? It all comes down to the issue of funding. The government
really refuses to address that point of keeping our forces combat
capable. If that is the purpose of having the military, the
government has reneged on its duty.
The limited cash infusion contained in the last budget was just
enough to pay off some of the backlog of bills. The vicious
cycle of defence planning and spending continues in the country,
yet the government continues to ship more troops overseas. Quite
a number just came back from East Timor not too many months ago.
I would like to ask the government how much planning, both of a
tactical and a strategic nature, has been invested in this
mission. We have committed ourselves to UN missions before
without considering the long term requirements or expectations,
like the list my colleague from Medicine Hat clearly pointed out,
with some situations like Zaire.
I believe the government just does not get the picture when it
comes to what our military is all about. In fact, it has
insulted our military from time to time, even to the point of
referring to our peacekeepers as boy scouts. I think that is an
insult. Really, they are far from being boy scouts.
The point remains that the government continues to support
peacekeeping missions because we have always supported
peacekeeping missions. No consideration is given to the fact
that there are half as many people in uniform in 2000 as there
were in 1970. We are deploying beyond our means.
The government has worked hard to promote and project an image
of peacekeeping and our peacekeepers that is blatantly false and
that needlessly places our military personnel in harm's way if
they do not have adequate equipment.
1945
Peacekeeping no longer follows the Cyprus model where Canadians
stood in observation posts with binoculars and surveyed the
uneasy but verifiable peace. For the past decade the UN has sent
peacekeepers into countries where there is no peace to keep, or
where the one that does exist is exceedingly vulnerable.
We have been sending our soldiers into war zones and blithely
asking them to keep the peace, and it has not happened. The
government's insistence that these operations are peacekeeping as
usual has created a sense of false comfort as Canadians think
their military personnel are enjoying six months in some foreign
land with little or no danger. Moreover the government has
failed to equip the troops it does send.
That brings us to the point of clothing the soldier. It is far
from complete and well behind its deadline, leaving them without
even the basic kit requirements. They have been forced to beg
supplies and material from our allies in the field.
The larger equipment requirements have also proven a constant
source of failure and embarrassment for the government. Our lack
of sealift and airlift capability has meant that we cannot move
our personnel or our equipment on scene without relying on
contracted out services. All we have to do is reflect back to
the GTS Katie to realize how unreliable some of those
services can be, with disastrous implications to this country.
Canada is consistently late in regard to deployment because we
lack the necessary deployment resources. Our military personnel
are forced to work with equipment that is often not interoperable
with our allies. Kosovo was an example. We just barely fit into
the communications band with our allies and they were required to
adjust to meet our lower standard.
We have no extraction capability, and this is becoming more and
more important. If our troops were involved in some conflict and
needed to be removed, there would be no opportunity to do that
because we just do not have that capability. There are no
resupply options. There is no reinforcement plan.
We have been fortunate thus far that our international friends
have been so willing to lend us a hand under these circumstances,
but surely a country such as Canada should not have to rely on
military charity for its military forces to function. There must
be a limit somewhere.
It is time to answer UN deployment calls within the context of
national interests. The member for Medicine Hat clearly pointed
out what should be our national interest. Is it every conflict
which comes along that we are asked to participate in and we do
it in an ad hoc fashion? Or, is it something that we define as
our basic interest and that is where our priorities lie? That
has never come from that side of the House, and it is high time
it does.
We cannot respond to every crisis, especially given the
government's complete lack of resolve to provide consistent
funding to the Canadian forces.
Members of our forces have been deployed in some of the most
difficult of situations and have never complained. It is the
responsibility and moral duty of the government of the day to
look after those needs, and I would have to say it has failed to
do so.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, I find it
indispensable to take part in this debate. I must say that I have
just heard some surprising words.
My new colleague from Medicine Hat, the foreign affairs critic,
seemed more concerned with adding to the argument of his
colleague, the defence critic, than giving the foreign affairs
point of view.
1950
Yes, it is true much needs to be done here, but much is indeed
being done, and we know that at this time there is one
fundamental issue for peace: that the UN regain its credibility.
This is something that affects all countries that have the means
to participate, and Canada is among them.
The people on the other side of the floor with all their
surpluses are not going to say whether the means need
re-examining. I know that they do not. What is the government
asking? Compliance with the UN request to provide 400 military
personnel, under chapter VI, to this mission, that is, to send in
some Blue Berets, infantry and armoured equipment in a context
in which there would not be any peace if the UN had not
guaranteed to occupy the disputed border area between Eritrea and
Ethiopia. The peace agreement was signed on June 18. We were no
longer sitting by that time.
It would have been a good idea if the question had been
submitted to us before the UN accepted. Perhaps the UN committed
itself without knowing the direction this mission would actually
take.
I am pretty well convinced, however, that Canada would have
agreed to participate in this mission after it weighed the
situation.
It is more than participation, since the UN is asking Canada to
take on the responsibility of managing the mission, along with
the Netherlands.
I would have liked to tell my colleagues who are concerned about
these issues—and we are also concerned about the plight of
Canadian troops—that since the ceasefire, since June 18, we have
found, based on our research, that the ceasefire has been
respected by both sides. In a way, this is a peacekeeping
mission that meets requirements that had not been met in a long
time.
It is a peacekeeping mission that is not at all like the one in
Sierra Leone, not at all like the one we need to have in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, where fighting is taking place
everywhere, and also not like the peacekeeping mission in East
Timor.
It is a situation where the ceasefire will be respected. Even
the end of the rainy season did not result in renewed violence.
There has been tension, but no violence.
When we assessed the situation, when we looked at the troops
available, when we took into consideration soldiers who had
returned from a mission and had already had a respite—because
that is important—we realized that we were able to take part in
this mission.
I want to go back to the UN's credibility, to this notion that
is based on what happens in the area of foreign affairs.
We must remember the failure of UN troops in Sierra Leone, the
dismal failure of peacekeepers in Sierra Leone. We must remember
what happened in East Timor, where a referendum held under the
aegis of the UN left the population at the mercy of
mistreatment, fire, destruction and abuse from adversaries who
had not accepted the clear verdict of that referendum. The
population is still waiting for the reconstruction process.
Who followed what happened in Rwanda? Of course, we do not even
talk about it. However, in these new missions, the UN must
demonstrate that it can be effective.
1955
Who is the UN, if not all the countries that make it up? It is
the member countries, ultimately. We cannot point a finger at
Kofi Annan. Of course there are problems of administration in
the UN. We can single out examples of overspending, yes, but
the collective responsibility of the member countries with
respect to peace lies ultimately with each individual nation.
I would like to speak briefly about Africa in connection with
what is going on in the world. Africa is the poorest
continent, the one which is now the stage for terrible conflicts
in countries that are poor and growing poorer.
There is the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where eight
African nations are battling each other. It is being called
Africa's first world war.
Africa is in a terrible state and the UN has frankly done little
to help.
Perhaps help is not possible, but that was not the impression
given by General Dallaire at the time. On the contrary, the
poor man is now personally tormented by what he experienced of
the UN's failure to act. He says that what has become a
terrible human tragedy, this genocide, could have been avoided.
With respect to the request being made, once again, I repeat
that it does not come under chapter VII, which provides for
armed troops who can defend themselves, but chapter VI
concerning peacekeepers. This is in a situation where there is
already a ceasefire. Canada's commitment is not an unlimited
one. As I understand it, it is limited.
Not only is it limited because the defence minister has said he
made that clear to the UN, but it appears to be limited by the
situation itself. What this peacekeeping force will allow is a
negotiated peace.
Permit me to recount some of the troubled history of this
region. Eritrea is a new country. It became a country as the
result of a referendum on self-determination overseen by the UN
in the spring of 1993. At that time, it became an independent
country. We knew at the time that there was a border problem.
Let us say that cartography is not the best equipped department
in a country that lacks everything, one of the poorest countries
on the planet.
The borders were not a big problem for several years. The
region is sparsely populated and has no natural resources. In
any case, relations between the two countries, Eritrea, which I
have just mentioned, and Ethiopia, which it separated from, were
more or less satisfactory.
Trade disagreements arose, but it was in 1996 that there were
new disagreements.
In 1998, the Ethiopian parliament declared war. We all saw the
terrible images because these countries found themselves at war
in this situation. Because of this war, and not because Eritrea
is not self-sufficient in food, the land
could not be cultivated as it ought. This war just ended in
June.
We are being asked to allow peace to be negotiated and agreed
to.
The Bloc Quebecois, members will have understood from what I
have said, supports this mission. We support it because our
general council adopted a resolution this spring calling for the
UN to agree to act as a buffer between the two borders.
2000
I neglected to mention the importance of understanding that
there is a zone 25 kilometres wide and more than 1,000
kilometres long that both parties want to see protected by the
UN peacekeeping mission.
Why? Because the border between the two countries, the one being
preserved by the UN, which was the original line at the time
Eritrea was separated from Ethiopia, is not well known. It is
being discussed.
While this border is being marked out, the mission in which we
are going to take part, I hope, will make it possible to
preserve the peace.
Since the general assembly of the Bloc Quebecois voted in favour
of such a resolution, we are pleased to see Canada participating
in a mission that will put it into place.
Second, we understand that there is a lot of mine removal to be
done. This land, which is poor and in many areas dry, and
lacking in natural resources as well, has been mined. There is
much work to be done to remove the mines.
When I accompanied the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the time
to Kosovo, I saw with my own eyes how soldiers were helping out,
helping groups, companies or community undertakings that were
going to do the de-mining.
It is therefore our understanding that there is a considerable
humanitarian aspect to the UN mission. For those who may be
watching, I should point out that the UN mission is going to be
called UNMEE, which stands for United Nations Mission in
Ethiopia and Eritrea.
Third, it seems extremely important to us that the UN and
Canada, which was invited to participate and which has the means
to do so, take part in that mission, precisely because this new
country, Eritrea, has become a country following a referendum
held under the aegis of the UN.
Therefore, it is not possible for the UN not to help that
region, that new country called Eritrea, which separated from
Ethiopia, define its borders. It is important not only for that
country but also for the future. It is the UN's duty to
intervene.
Fourth, it is interesting to know that the ceasefire agreement
provides for the implementation of a peaceful dispute settlement
process, including arbitration if necessary, to define borders.
This means that the conflict will be limited in terms of its
duration.
I should add something that is more comforting. The two sides
agree on one thing: under international law, Eritrea's border
will have to be the same as it was when it achieved
independence, and this excludes any partition, whether through a
referendum or armed intervention.
Naturally, as a history teacher and a committed individual when
it comes to the right of peoples, I am pleased to see that both
sides agree on that, under the UN's authority. That country
comes all the more under the responsibility of the UN, and of
Canada, which was invited to take part in that mission.
Fifth, I repeat that, unlike most conflicts where peacekeepers
are present, this conflict has every chance to be limited in
terms of its duration. As soon as the peace accord is reached,
the UNMEE will no longer have any reason to exist.
2005
It is much simpler—and it has seldom been possible in recent
missions in which Canada took part—to say that the mission is
limited in duration. The Canadian army is now in a position to
participate in the mission. There are 2,500 Canadian Blue
Berets in the world. With the exception of the 192 on the Golan
Heights, Canada is not very involved in the most difficult
missions right now. There are ten Blue Berets in Jerusalem,
five in Iraq, five in Sierra Leone, two in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, and three in Timor.
The largest contingent is in Bosnia where, despite everything,
there is relative peace, particularly since the recent election
in Serbia. UNMEE is therefore coming at the right time.
For all these reasons, and I hope the member for Medicine Hat
will come around, I say on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois that we
hope that Canada will take part in this mission. I would,
however, emphasize that prior consultation would have been
preferable.
Given the circumstances, however, I think that the government
should perhaps have recalled us during the summer in order to
consult parliament, but I understand that there were
circumstances in which Canada was being pressured and that it
was urgent to reply to the two countries concerned.
We have been told of the terrible situation they faced, of the
more than 100,000 dead, of those who were displaced, and of all
those of whose suffering we were not reminded but who faced
starvation and other woes.
Whenever Canada comes to us with a responsible decision which
bolsters the credibility of the UN and is consistent with the
health and safety of troops from Quebec and from Canada, we will
be there.
In conclusion, during my first term of office, before my riding
boundaries were changed, the Longue Pointe military base was in
my riding and I met with a number of officers who were very
proud of Canadian skills and very unhappy about all the
disappointments that had befallen the army.
I understand that our troops are proud when they can demonstrate
their skills. The Canadian army needs this pride given what it
has gone through as an organization. I am not talking about
responsibilities to be distributed, but troop morale.
[English]
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
very pleased and welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of
the NDP to the issue of Canada's role in the peacekeeping mission
to Eritrean-Ethiopian border. Like other members of the House, I
am very proud of Canada's record in the world of peacekeeping and
what our men and women have accomplished and will continue to
accomplish in this field.
Just this past week I had the honour of attending a reunion of
the veterans of the Princess Louise Fusiliers regiment. It was
very encouraging to attend their special ceremonies. I had the
honour of presenting Mr. George Cameron, one of the veterans in
my riding of Halifax West, with a special service award, a peace
bar for service he performed in Korea, and to see the pride and
joy on his face with which he accepted that medal, even though it
had come many years late. There were some problems in getting
the medal to him, but we were finally able to do so and he was
very pleased with it.
2010
I was also pleased to see at the ceremony the current regiment
of the Princess Louise Fusiliers on parade. I was quite
impressed with the composition of that reserve unit. Minority
group people and young women were represented in that unit. Young
women were marching proudly. It shows we have made some advances
over the years and that we are gradually improving the situation
with respect to our military.
It was particularly encouraging when the regiment called up the
veterans and they stood side by side on parade. The younger and
older generations were side by side, proudly displaying their
feelings of having provided service to our country in a very
meaningful way.
Turning to the particular mission, I underscore that on this
occasion I am quite pleased to see that this is a UN sponsored
mission. It is somewhat different from the conflict in Kosovo
which was primarily NATO driven and dominated by U.S.
intervention. I made the point forcibly during the debate on
that issue, but on this issue I am pleased to see that this is a
UN sponsored mission, which is where I think these kinds of
international conflicts should be dealt with.
First and foremost, I believe that all Canadians involved in
this effort must be properly equipped, clothed, supported,
trained, led and organized. I pray that the government has
learned from the extreme hardships encountered by peacekeepers in
Croatia and is ensuring that our peacekeepers on this mission are
provided with every opportunity to fulfil their mission safely
and securely.
Canada owes a debt of gratitude from the outset to every
Canadian involved in this effort. I think about their families
and their communities. I recall this past June taking a trip to
Edmonton, Alberta, to speak to a group about health care issues.
When I finished my talk I asked if there were any questions.
I was asked a question, not by one of the members of the
audience, but by a young lady far in the back who was working the
bar in that establishment. She asked me when I would bring her
husband back home. There was a note of desperation in her voice
as she told her story of how due to the operational tempo of the
armed services her husband was away from home time after time.
She hardly saw him. She was left behind with two small children
to support. She was holding down two jobs trying to support her
children and was going through a terrible time. When I talked
with after the meeting she broke down and cried. I hugged her
for a moment and we talked a bit more. Then she told me that if
things did not get better she would have to leave her husband.
She did not want to but she could not take it any more.
That is what the high operational tempo is doing to families.
This was back in June. I am glad to hear the minister in his
remarks acknowledged the problem with the operational tempo. He
is apparently concerned about it and is doing something to
address the issue. It is important to families to know when
their men and women are away on service that proper supports are
available to them.
Also during the summer I visited a family resource centre. I
was impressed with the amount of work and the kind of work the
organization was doing to support military families. It was
there in their time of need to help them through the many
problems they faced while their spouses were on active duty.
Also with respect to this mission, I am glad to see that we are
becoming more involved on the African continent. I have raised
that point as well. I was pleased to hear my colleague from the
Bloc Quebecois point out her concern that perhaps in the past our
involvement in the African nations has not been as desirable as
we would like or has not accomplished as much as we would like.
2015
It is good to see that this particular mission is going to an
area that has been torn by strife and where the need is there.
Just last evening I was speaking with the ambassador from
Eritrea. We talked a bit about the difficulties in that country
and the devastation that the war has caused. I was quite
surprised to learn that a large number of the people who fight in
the Eritrean army are women. There are a large number of women
soldiers fighting in that battle. I asked in particular whether
or not there were child soldiers involved. She said that there
were not, that they protect their children, but that women are out
on the front lines fighting and dying for their country.
This conflict has had an enormous cost for both Eritrea and
Ethiopia in terms of lives lost. We are told that in a two year
period up to June 2000 almost 100,000 lives have been lost. Just
picture that. That number would wipe out a good portion of the
core city of Halifax and is larger than the population of many
towns and cities across Canada. So many lives have been lost in
the war.
It has been very difficult for both countries with respect to
food, security and property. I asked the ambassador from Eritrea
what her views were with respect to this upcoming peacekeeping
mission and I could see the joy on her face and her appreciation
of the fact that we were going to send peacekeepers to help them
in their time of need. She said that we would be very much
welcome in the role of peacekeeping in that area.
In the past year, successive poor crops in Eritrea combined with
recent Ethiopian attacks in agricultural regions have brought
more than one million Eritreans to the brink of starvation. That
is a lot of people. Sometimes we think about the poverty and the
starvation right here in our own country, but look at a large
number like one million people. Quite often it is seen on TV. We
can see the bodies that are being racked with hunger, the bones
coming through the flesh. It is hard to imagine that when many
of us can sit down at a table and sometimes eat more than we
should eat. We have to go on diets sometimes because we are
overweight, yet one million people are on the brink of
starvation.
I sincerely hope that this peacekeeping effort can play a role
in creating conditions whereby the famine in Eritrea can be
addressed. On that issue, Canada should be front and foremost in
providing food aid to Eritrea over and above the $500,000
recently provided for displaced persons. We need to do more.
On September 15, 2000 the UN security council passed resolution
1320 authorizing a full mission of 4,200 troops, including 220
observers, with a six month mandate. The United Nations mission
will monitor the implementation of the cessation of hostilities
agreement in a temporary security zone along the border. A
combined Canadian-Dutch battalion will take responsibility for
the central portion of this region.
Canada is looking at sending a mechanized infantry, including a
company headquarters, three infantry platoons, a reconnaissance
platoon, supporting engineers and logistics and combat service
personnel, amounting to about 400 troops in all, and possibly
another 200 engineering and logistics personnel as needed.
The report on Canada's peacekeeping efforts in Croatia produced
a troubling picture. In that situation our peacekeepers lacked
lumber and sandbags to adequately protect themselves from the
regular shelling and gunfire. They lacked proper medical support
and sufficient advance surgical team support. The UN refused for
weeks to examine complaints from our peacekeepers that the
drinking water was contaminated.
I was pleased to hear the minister indicate in his remarks
tonight that in this particular mission our troops will be well
resourced and well supplied.
Our peacekeepers, their families and communities deserve to know
that the government has addressed all these issues and is doing
everything possible to ensure that our peacekeepers are provided
with all the support possible.
Our thoughts and prayers will be with our peacekeepers and their
families over the weeks and months to come. I pray for their
safety and for their safe and healthy return. On behalf of all
Canadians and many beyond our borders, I am both proud and humble
in offering sincere thanks to our peacekeepers for their efforts.
2020
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
with a mixed sense of both pride and concern that I rise to speak
tonight on the issue of sending Canadian armed forces
peacekeepers to Ethiopia and Eritrea.
I would like to advise you, Madam Speaker, that I intend to
share my time tonight with my colleague for Richmond—Arthabaska.
In the history of the United Nations' peacekeeping efforts, few
countries share the type of legacy earned by the people of
Canada. Our Canadian peacekeepers are the most requested in the
world, known for their fairness, their dedication and their great
skill and ability. Our peacekeepers have challenged those who
would challenge freedom and liberty, whether in Europe, Asia,
Africa or the Middle East.
At no time in our nation's history has our service to global
community or our sense of duty and responsibility ever been
questioned. Whenever human rights and democracy were threatened,
Canada has stood in their defence. Whenever tyranny and genocide
have ruled, Canada has sought them out and ended their reign.
Given the importance of this debate tonight, let me be perfectly
clear. I will not dispute the merit of sending Canadian armed
forces peacekeepers to Ethiopia or Eritrea, but I will oppose
with my very last breath sending our armed forces to any point on
this globe if they are either unprepared or ill-equipped. As my
colleague from Nova Scotia has stated, many of our men and women
in uniform have been sent before as peacekeepers and they have
been ill-equipped and unprepared.
I was at a family resource centre on one of the bases in Nova
Scotia. I want the Minister of National Defence to know that I
was really impressed with that family resource centre, but they
had to have a place for little children so they could feed them,
because our men and women were taking them to the food banks.
They had to have counselling there because the fathers were away
for months at a time. The government did not give one penny to
that resource centre. The people on the base had to go out into
the community and raise the money in order to put that family
resource unit together. It was unbelievable. When they told me
about this I was really in shock to think that we had allowed
this to happen in Canada.
I have often stood in the House and said that when we order our
men and women in uniform into harm's way, we must not increase
the risk by supplying them with resources and equipment that are
insufficient for the tasks we have assigned them to do.
I am confident that hon. members are aware of the uncertain
state of our armed forces. In the last seven years Canada's
defence budget has declined steadily as the operational tempo of
our armed forces has risen. When I speak of our military's
operational tempo, I speak of the ratio of time spent in deployed
missions by our men and women in uniform.
This is at the very heart of what we debate here tonight. In
the 1993-94 fiscal year, the Department of National Defence had a
budget of $12 billion. Perhaps this was not ideal but it was
respectable. Tragically, by the 1998-99 fiscal year the
department was cut to a shameful $9.4 billion. In this past
decade the defence department's budget has been cut
substantially, by 23%. In this same time our military has been
called upon to battle both the worst of mother nature's arsenal
and the worst of the world's tyrannies.
Sadly, the cuts to the military's budget have been unavoidably
followed by cuts to the numbers in their ranks. The number of
CAF personnel has been reduced by about 20% in the same period as
the budget cuts. The reduction in the number of civilian
employees at the Department of National Defence has been a
staggering 40%.
2025
That said, fewer people with fewer resources are being assigned
a greater number of missions and more work. The House knows as
well or better than I that when we use terms such as missions and
work we mean risk and danger.
Just this past weekend the chief of the defence staff, General
Maurice Baril, confirmed in the Ottawa Citizen that there
was likely to be an additional reduction of 2,000 to 3,000 men and
women in a process that he called readjustment. General Baril
alluded to a grave prediction that up to 10% of all the bases in
Canada will either be shut down or sold off.
The best training in the world for young people is in the cadets
reserve and then right into the military. They learn respect
for their fellow Canadian, their fellow man, and they learn respect
for their country. If we wanted to turn our country around, we
would put more of our people in the military. We would give the
military more money for the budget. We would give the minister
more money for the budget. We would give Maurice Baril and
whoever needs it more money.
Those men and women can never come up on this Hill with placards
when in uniform and fight for what they need, but
never do I want to see any of our people in the military taking
their children to a soup kitchen.
That is with the understanding that about 50% of the defence
department's infrastructure is aging rapidly and will need to be
replaced within the next 10 years, at a heroic estimated cost of
about $1 billion. That is why they talk about closing bases.
Those are just the details that are known. Those are just the
facts and figures that any Canadian can learn by picking up the
newspaper. Imagine what might be hidden away beyond the reach of
the Access to Information Act.
It was around this time last year that we began to see the very
real need for our help in East Timor. The House will recall the
flurry of activity on the part of the Minister of National
Defence at that time, when out of pure uncompromising necessity
he had to limit our commitment to other parts of the world to
make Canadian participation in East Timor possible.
I am a proud member of the Standing Committee on National
Defence and Veterans Affairs. It is very close to my heart. I
attended committee meetings late last year when the chief of
defence staff and his officers came and told us of the need to
limit our international commitment until we had the resources to
afford them.
My colleague for Richmond—Arthabaska is more knowledgeable than
I in matters related to foreign affairs. I am certain he will
have a greater understanding of and appreciation for the
desperate situation now facing the Ethiopian people, but my duty
here tonight is to speak for our armed forces and my
responsibility to the House is to defend the best interests of
the men and women in uniform.
If the merits of this mission are outweighed by the risks to our
troops, then the cost is too great for our country. If the
branch of peace can be extended to those desperate people, if a
better life can be afforded to them by our action, it would be
cruelly un-Canadian to turn our backs.
I will finish my remarks here tonight as I began, by praising
the hard earned and well deserved reputation of Canadian
peacekeepers. Here tonight it is under the watchful eye of a
protective God that we dispatch them to help plant a Canadian
seed of freedom in a land scorched by the fire of war and soaked
by the tears of a crestfallen people. We pray for their safe
return.
Godspeed and good luck.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Madam Speaker, this
evening, two ministers started off this debate, and I would like
to pay tribute to the tenacity of the Minister of National
Defence, who has remained with us. It is greatly appreciated.
This evening we are to debate and vote on the deployment of
troops with our allies from the Netherlands to a corner of the
world we rarely hear about, except from journalists who are
braving the war to show it to us in the papers and on
television. There were over 100,000 dead in two years.
2030
It took some marketing and publicity to get the nations of the
world to deal with this war. It is true that not all problems
can be resolved; still, there are 100,000 dead.
There were one or two UN resolutions. Yet there are 100,000
dead. Why did intervention not come as quickly as in the case
of Kosovo, for example? Was it because no aggressor could be
identified? No one wanted to take sides. One hundred thousand
dead. What lesson did we take from Rwanda in this? None. We
have let things be. Men, women and children killed, massacred
and tortured: 100,000 dead and we did not intervene.
I do not blame this government.
I believe that all of parliament, all of Canada and all of the
world must share the blame. But 100,000 dead, that is
unbelievable. We moved more quickly in Kosovo. Why? Was it because
economic interests justified a western presence there, while
Canada has virtually no economic ties to that part of the
African continent? Who knows?
I congratulate the government, however. My colleague from Saint
John has always been ready to support any peacekeeping
initiative by the government in power, while pointing out the
budgetary complications.
I trust that the prayers of my colleague from Saint John for the
men and women over there will be granted. I hope that the
wishes of the Minister of National Defence will also come true:
to get the funding necessary to really have a quality military
force over there. That is our wish as well.
What I would like to point out is that there has not been enough
said about this. No aggressor has been identified.
When I look at the various UN resolutions, whether it be 1312 or
earlier ones, what I conclude is that as of July 31 the
decision was made to send people to set up a human rights unit.
There is a co-ordinator, and he or she—I do not know which—is going
to look into the charges of atrocities, abuses, by either side.
I think that is a good thing, to be honest.
When we send our men and women from Canada and from the
Netherlands to that part of the world, there will also be people
over there who will have to look into the charges and prepare
files on them.
My question is this: are there going to be charges? Canada is a
leader in international law. There has been Louise Arbour, and
Canada has done a great deal.
Yet the fact remains that 100,000 persons were killed over a two
year period. Will charges be laid? My prediction is that,
unfortunately, no charges will be laid.
If charges are laid on one side rather than the other, people
will refuse to let the international community get involved. Who
will deal with those who killed 100,000 men and women? A report
will be prepared, but it will be hidden away, because those
involved will feel that it is better not to accuse anyone than
to resume the war.
It is like some bargaining negotiations that fail. They break
everything in sight—I am not naming anyone—and then they say it is
all right, as long as the strike comes to an end.
But here we are talking about human lives. I know that the
government, parliament and all Canadians are receptive to that.
We are leaders. If one commits a crime, there should be no haven
for that person.
2035
There are no havens, except that unfortunately in this
specific case, those responsible for these atrocities will
probably not be charged by the international criminal tribunal.
It is not the fault of the Department of National Defence, not
at all. I do not put the blame on the new Minister of Foreign
Affairs. I cannot do that. It is a joint responsibility.
I hope the government will continue to exert proper pressure. I
know the limitations of international diplomacy. I know that
when we sign a treaty or a peace agreement, we must make
sacrifices.
Under international law, will rounding up those responsible for
atrocities be part of the peace negotiations? If so, all of the
work Canada, other countries and Madam Justice Arbour have done
will be for naught. It is said that 100,000 people were
massacred in this war between two countries alone. Millions and
millions of people have been massacred and mutilated in Africa,
and the west has done nothing. I am not talking about the rest
of the world; I am talking about the African continent. To get
something done, journalists equipped with cameras would have to
be sent to every corner of every country on the African
continent.
That said, I draw attention to the efforts by the minister of
defence. However, it is said that there can be no negotiation
with terrorists. But sometimes, negotiation is necessary.
Should we negotiate with the people responsible for the
massacres? For peace, perhaps.
If we say perhaps, we scrap all the efforts at ensuring
accountability in international law. I know that the people in
the government know this. They know very well that the people
in this party also know about the basic right that applies to
the world as a whole, which is the right to life. When this
right is taken away, international law must come into play.
I join with my colleague from Saint John in the hope that the
men and women who will be there will be absolutely safe and that
the six month mandate is a success. It will probably be renewed
with other countries. Canada has a truly magnificent
international reputation.
On this side of the House, in this party, we support this
initiative of the Minister of National Defence or the Minister
of Foreign Affairs or the government to have Canada maintain and in
fact increase its credibility and not simply observe massacres
or the aftermath of war and indeed be a country that ensures peace
ahead of any armed conflict.
[English]
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the
member for Hillsborough.
I am very pleased and proud this evening to participate in this
debate and obviously to support the government's position to send
peacekeepers to Ethiopia.
As the minister responsible for the Canadian International
Development Agency, I have been dealing with this area for some
time, both with respect to the disastrous effects that the famine
has had, which is a natural disaster as a result of drought in
this region both in Eritrea as well as in Ethiopia, compounded
with the war that exists between these two countries.
People have suffered on both sides. In Eritrea there are about
one million people who have been displaced within the country as
well as in Ethiopia. The war has caused a tremendous amount of
hardship which was compounded by the famine. Safety in the area
to provide assistance has been very difficult.
We are very thankful and very proud that my department, together
with other departments in the Government of Canada and other
partners, have managed to finally negotiate a peace agreement
in this area. I congratulate the two countries and hope that
this of course will hold. That is why I support wholeheartedly
Canada's participation.
2040
Canadian peacekeepers are, from what I saw when I travelled to
Kosovo, a group of soldiers who are not only welcome but who
become part of the community. In Kosovo they have become loved
partners of the children of Kosovo. They have helped to rebuild
the schools as well as doing their jobs as peacekeepers and
keeping the young people away from mines.
CIDA has already announced $200,000 to the UN mine co-ordination
centre, $100,000 for Eritrea and the other $100,000 for Ethiopia.
Unfortunately both sides have laid an untold number of land mines
in the area and this has to be addressed very quickly.
Last month Canada made an important investment in peace in a
broader sense. I am referring, of course, to the International
Conference on War-Affected Children which was held in Winnipeg.
Children and women are very much the people who pay the highest
price in these circumstances. The conference was attended by
Eritrean ministers and I urged them to sign and ratify the land
mines treaty.
I am pleased to note that Ethiopia has signed the treaty and we
still look forward to its early ratification. First and
foremost, however, we look forward to both governments taking a
leadership role in removing the mines laid during the conflict,
which are major threats to Ethiopian and Eritrean people,
especially children.
Both countries have a responsibility to utilize the strength of
their soldiers who are no longer involved in hostilities and
hopefully will continue to not be involved in hostilities but
who will direct their energies toward the removal of the land mines
with the assistance of the UN mine action committee which can
certainly train, supervise and assist together with Canadian
assistance.
According to the UN human development index, these two countries
rank among the 15 poorest countries in the world. Already this
year, in order to assist with the disasters that have occurred in
that country, natural disasters, famine, as well as having the
situation compounded by the war, Canada has provided $25 million
in assistance to meet the needs of the drought in war affected
populations in the Horn of Africa. Most of that was provided to
both Eritrea and Ethiopia.
During the last conference on war affected children, I made a
commitment that from now on when peacekeepers go into an area we
will also finance a child protection program that will be part of
the peacekeeping unit. It is very important to understand that
when peacekeepers move into an area there are people in various
camps to separate the children and women. We want to be able to
assist and to protect children from any situations that might arise
and ensure that they are assisted with rehabilitation, education
and nutrition. Most children in this situation have suffered
tremendously from malnutrition, from fear and, quite often, are not
just physical abused, but as a result of war are injured in
many different ways.
In addition to that, I have asked my department to be very much
involved. One of my advisers in this area is General Dallaire
who will be working with me to define and shape some of the
programs that we will be delivering to this region.
As members know, General Dallaire is someone who has a great
deal of expertise in the field with respect to peacekeeping. He
also has a great deal of understanding of what happens to
children and people when they are affected by war and when they
have gone through a very long period of hostilities. He knows
about the kind of assistance that is required to assist people to
rebuild their lives slowly and be able to function again.
My department and CIDA will be looking to working very closely
with the peacekeepers in terms of protecting the children,
providing the medical health care they require, the food aid, the
nutrition, the education, the rehabilitation and possibly
assistance in the area of shelter.
It is very critical to understand that we must begin to push
very hard for the elimination of land mines.
2045
Most of the land has not been tilled as a result of the war and
the drought. The land that could be tilled and could be planted
is full of land mines. If we do not de-mine as quickly as we can
and with the assistance of the two military groups that were
involved in laying many of these land mines, crops will not be
planted. That means yet another season of crops will be missed,
which will exacerbate the famine and the food shortage in the
region as they exist today.
I am very proud to say that the staff at CIDA and our partners,
the NGOs that we worked with, have been in the field for a very
long time to assist with the famine as much as they could and
with some of the displaced people in the camps. They will now be
in a position to go in with our peacekeepers and make a much
bigger difference.
I am proud today to support the Minister of National Defence and
the Government of Canada with the initiative. I believe in it
very strongly, having seen what happens to people when I visited
some of the areas of conflict in Africa. I believe that Canada
should be there. CIDA will be there to assist side by side in
ensuring that people can get back to some normalcy of life.
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker, as
a Canadian and as a parliamentarian I am very proud to rise in
the House tonight to speak in support of the motion before us on
possible Canadian peacekeeping activities in Ethiopia and
Eritrea. Indeed it is an historic moment every time Canada
deploys in an international operation such as this one. It
reaffirms in no uncertain terms our steadfast commitment to world
peace and security.
By supporting the proposal before the House we will be
continuing in the fine Canadian tradition of coming to the aid of
those in need. By participating in the United Nations mission to
Ethiopia and Eritrea we will be showing the world that we not
only speak of peace but we act on it as well.
We have heard today from some members of the House why this
mission is important. After years of bloody war, an estimated
100,000 or more dead and about 1.5 million displaced, the
fighting has finally stopped. What is more, the parties are now
looking for help in their bid to establish a lasting peace.
From a moral standpoint there are very good reasons to
participate in this mission. Furthermore, from a military
perspective this mission is well within our means. In other
words, we have both the will and the military potential to
successfully contribute to this UN operation.
The conditions on the ground in Ethiopia and Eritrea are ready
for a peacekeeping force. The parties have signed the agreement
on cessation of hostilities and have called for a UN mission to
monitor and ensure this agreement. The parties are prepared for
peace and we are well placed to respond to their call for help.
With an end to open hostilities there is now little threat posed
by the warring parties. In fact, the greatest dangers that our
forces anticipate on this proposed mission are the harsh
operating conditions, disease and unexploded munitions. These
are threats that with proper precautions can be minimized and
effectively managed by professional forces such as ours.
In fact, Canadian forces personnel would be well prepared for
any possible contingency. They would receive thorough
pre-deployment training, enabling them to deal effectively with
everything from land mines to refugees. They would have the
necessary equipment and support required to carry out their tasks
effectively and safely. They would be physically prepared for
the harsh conditions on the Horn of Africa with all the requisite
medical support and attention this entails. The military
preconditions are right for this mission. Furthermore, the
proposed concept of the operation is sound.
Canadian soldiers would be there for six months only. This
would ensure that our expertise is used at the most critical
moment in the initial months of the mission. It would also
ensure that the Canadian commitment of soldiers and resources
would be temporary and would not place unreasonable long term
demands on our forces.
2050
Canada would be in good company. The proposed mission calls for
the Canadian forces to operate alongside an experienced and
professional allied force, that of the Netherlands, and under the
operational command of the deployed standby forces high readiness
brigade, better known as SHIRBRIG, from its headquarters. This,
along with robust rules of engagement, would ensure that deployed
Canadian forces are provided with the full support, leadership
and authority required to effectively carry out their mission.
As hon. members may know, the proposal before the House calls for
a company group of approximately 400 personnel to be committed to
the United Nations mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea. Given the
Canadian forces current operational tempo, this deployment is
achievable.
The government's rationalization of overseas commitments is
largely complete. The high operational tempo experienced just a
year ago when close to 4,500 Canadian forces personnel were in
operation is now behind us. This being said, the Canadian forces
remain busy currently with about 2,500 personnel on overseas
deployments.
The proposed commitment of approximately 400 personnel is
therefore within our means. By providing a company group to the
Dutch battalion, Canada would be making a substantial
contribution to the overall success of the mission, while at the
same time guarding the quality of life of its military personnel.
I would like to call once again on all members of the House to
support the government's proposed involvement in the UN mission
in Ethiopia and Eritrea. Our help is needed. Our soldiers are
prepared and our objectives are achievable. Let us not fail to
respond.
I will take a few moments to thank and say farewell to my
colleagues on the last time that I will be speaking in this
glorious Chamber. Over the last 12 years in parliament I have
met some wonderful people on all sides of the House. My
opposition colleagues, even in the toughest of times, have shown
me non-partisan respect. I certainly appreciate this.
I would also like to recognize my own colleagues. I have met
some lifelong friends that I will always hold close to my heart.
I thank both the staff and members I have worked with in my
capacity as parliamentary secretary to both veterans affairs and
labour. I also thank those I have worked with in the Canadian
NATO Parliamentary Association and on the Standing Committee on
National Defence and Veterans Affairs. I thank them all for
their help, for their advice and for their friendship. I have
had the most remarkable 12 years in the House and I have been
privileged to serve the people of my riding of Hillsborough and
the people of this great nation.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of the motion before us
respecting possible Canadian peacekeeping activities in Ethiopia
and Eritrea.
I support the government's position in this regard. As a member
of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade I have followed this conflict. I have followed it as my
friends in the Ethiopian and Eritrean community spoke to me about
the loss of lives and the agony of the situation in those two
countries. Since the parties are prepared for peace, as
Canadians we cannot but support this effort.
I reinforce some of the points mentioned by the Minister of
National Defence in describing Canada's proposed military
contribution to the UN mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea. It is
important to restate some of the major points, bearing in mind
that the final number of troops, the cost, et cetera, remain to
be determined.
As many of us know and as we have heard here tonight from
various speakers, the conditions and opportunity for a UN
sponsored peacekeeping mission to Ethiopia and Eritrea began to
take shape this past four months.
On June 18 Ethiopia and Eritrea signed a cessation of
hostilities agreement sponsored by the Organization of African Unity. This
agreement called upon the UN to establish a peacekeeping mission.
In response, UN security council resolution 1312, adopted
unanimously on July 31, authorized a mission consisting of up to
100 military observers to deploy to Ethiopia and Eritrea in
anticipation of a larger peacekeeping operation.
2055
The tasks of this initial mission are: to establish and
maintain liaison with the parties; to visit the parties' military
headquarters and other units in all areas of operation of the
peacekeeping mission; to establish and put into operation the
mechanism for verifying the cessation of hostilities; to prepare
for the establishment of a military co-ordination commission
provided for in the cessation of hostilities agreement; and to
assist in the planning for a future peacekeeping operation.
The security council has called on Ethiopia and Eritrea to
provide this advance mission with access, assistance, support,
and protection required in the performance of its duties. Many
of my constituents underlined that these are tremendously
important: access, assistance, support and protection.
The two countries are also called upon to facilitate the
deployment of mine action experts and the assets under the UN
mine action service.
The security council has stressed the importance of a rapid
delimitation and demarcation of the common border between
Ethiopia and Eritrea in accordance with the Organization of
African Unity framework agreement of 1998 and the cessation of
hostilities agreement.
Six members of the Canadian forces are already committed to this
mission. One lieutenant-colonel is already in theatre as the
chief operations officer in support of the UN mission
headquarters there. He has already been heavily involved in the
initial deployment of military observers throughout the region.
Through discussion we know that we have five of our own military
observers about to deploy. A Canadian major was also briefly
deployed as part of a UN team that helped to train the initial
cadre of observers.
On September 15, following a technical assessment by the team of
observers, the UN security council adopted resolution 1320
authorizing the establishment of a UN mission to Ethiopia and
Eritrea. This resolution precipitated our current proposal to
make further Canadian contributions to the UN mission.
The main Canadian forces contribution would be a mechanized
infantry company group. This would include a company
headquarters and three infantry platoons equipped with armoured
personnel carriers. It would also have engineering and logistics
support and other combat service support. It may also include a
reconnaissance platoon equipped with our Coyote vehicles.
We know that we as Canadian peacekeepers are equipped to carry
out this mission. With regard to the total number of personnel
deployed, as I said earlier we are still uncertain at this point,
but there is an approximate number of 400 suggested. In
addition, we are prepared to deploy, if needed and for a brief
period, a surge of up to 200 engineers and logisticians to
establish the initial basic infrastructure such as shelter and
services.
We will know more after we have conducted our reconnaissance
mission. It is hoped that the Minister of National Defence will
be notifying the House and Canadians as to the progress of this
mission.
The minister also pointed out that the Canadian mechanized
company group would be deployed as an integral part of a Dutch
battalion operating in the central region under the UN mission
headquarters. They will be joining other battalions from Jordan
and from Kenya under the UN mission headquarters in the eastern
and the western regions.
The mission headquarters would have at its core the military
headquarters staff from the standby high readiness brigade, or
SHIRBRIG. Canada has committed up to seven officers to the
planning element of this staff.
2100
As with any deployment Canada would have its own national
command and support elements in place in the combined
Dutch-Canadian battalion. We have learned lessons from other
peacekeeping areas we have been in and recognize that being under
our own national command is important to us.
Deploying alongside the Dutch forces is a particular point of
strength in this proposed peacekeeping mission. Our forces would
be in very good company, operating alongside professional, well
equipped and well led soldiers. We also have been working very
closely with the government of the Netherlands on mission
planning.
This would not be a long term commitment for Canada. The
Canadian company group would be deployed for a period of no more
than six months. The UN is well aware of our intent to hold to
this six month commitment and to thereafter return our forces to
Canada. Other speakers tonight mentioned the importance of our
going in, getting the job done and safely coming out.
Following pre-deployment preparations and training, the company
group could be ready to leave Canada in 45 days to 60 days from
the time the government decides to deploy. Initial preparations
are already under way. If a decision is made to deploy, Canadian
and Dutch troops would start arriving in theatre at the end of
November.
Once in Africa, Canadian forces would complete any necessary
collective training with the Dutch contingent before commencing
operations. It could take up to 25 days to get equipment. We
know we have not only to fly in equipment but sail it in from
this region to the African region.
Based on our initial planning, the department estimates that the
incremental cost of this proposed operation will be about $60
million for the six month period. I would imagine this is $60
million Canadian.
We are calling upon the men and women of the Canadian forces to
demonstrate our resolve in maintaining peace and stability in a
troubled region of the world. Not many times do we see the
western world running to the assistance of Africa, but this is
one instance where I must commend the decision we are taking
tonight to support that peace effort. Such decisions are not
taken lightly by the government and the House. Everyone's
support today is important to Canada and to our common goal of
peace building.
I plead with and ask hon. members to support the government's
proposal to deploy the Canadian forces to a UN mission in
Ethiopia and Eritrea. Let us all pray that this six month
mandate will be successful and that at the end of those six
months we can say with the old psalmist “Peace at last”.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): There being no
further members rising, pursuant to order made earlier this day,
the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 9.04 p.m.)