36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 115
CONTENTS
Thursday, June 15, 2000
0900
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Private Members' Business—Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
0905
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES FOR 1999-2000
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE REPORT
|
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
0910
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Citizenship and Immigration
|
| Mr. Joe Fontana |
| Canadian Heritage
|
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
| Finance
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| Agriculture and Agri-food
|
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
0915
| COURTS ADMINISTRATION SERVICE ACT
|
| Bill C-40. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| CIVILIAN WAR-RELATED BENEFITS ACT
|
| Bill C-41. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| EDUCATION BENEFITS ACT
|
| Bill C-491. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Janko Peric |
| PETITIONS
|
| Gasoline Prices
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
0920
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Rights of the Unborn
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Gasoline Pricing
|
| Mr. Maurice Godin |
| Health Care
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Canada Post
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Conscientious Objection Act
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| VIA Rail
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
0925
| Abortion
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| Assisted Suicide
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| Rights of the Unborn
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| Age of Consent
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| Immigration
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| Mammography
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| Canada Post
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| Impoverished Nations
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| Fiji
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Gasoline Pricing
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Productivity Enhancement
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| The Budget
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| Debt Reduction
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| Research and Development
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| Child Tax Benefit
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| Foreign Property Rule
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| Hepatitis C
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Bioartificial Kidney
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| The Senate
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Snowbirds
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Agriculture
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Children
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Charitable Organizations
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
0930
| Gasoline Pricing
|
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
| Health
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Immigration
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Donations
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Supremacy of God
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Health Care
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
0935
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Official Languages
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| PETITIONS
|
| Canada Post Corporation
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| Nuclear Weapons
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAuley |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Health Care
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Motion
|
0940
0945
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
0950
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
0955
1000
| Motion
|
1005
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1010
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1015
1020
1025
1030
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1035
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1040
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1045
1050
1055
1100
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1105
1110
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1115
1120
1125
1130
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1135
1140
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1145
1150
1155
1200
1205
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1210
| Mr. John Solomon |
1215
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1220
1225
| Mr. John Duncan |
1230
1235
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1240
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1245
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1250
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1255
1300
| Mr. John Solomon |
1305
1310
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1315
1320
1325
1330
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1335
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1340
1345
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1350
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| LEGACY OF LOGAN
|
| Mr. John Richardson |
| PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1400
| NATIONAL PUBLIC SERVICE WEEK
|
| Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| LAURIE THRONESS
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| MAYOR OF HULL
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| THE PRIME MINISTER
|
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
| CANADA
|
| Mr. Irwin Cotler |
1405
| THE CANADIAN ALLIANCE
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| MERIDIAN TECHNOLOGIES
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| THE WAVE 94.7 FM
|
| Ms. Beth Phinney |
| PRIVACY
|
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
| QUEBECERS' FÊTE NATIONALE
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1410
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| COLIN WHITE AND JON SIM
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| TREVOR SNYDER
|
| Mr. Rick Limoges |
| GUN REGISTRY
|
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1415
| ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| PARENTAL LEAVE
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| HUMAN RIGHTS
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1430
| Mr. Bob Speller |
| PARENTAL LEAVE
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1435
| PARENTAL LEAVE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1440
| FRANCOPHONE ATHLETES
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Denis Coderre |
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Denis Coderre |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
|
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1445
| FIREARMS ACT
|
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
1450
| Hon. David Anderson |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| GUN REGISTRY
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1455
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Ms. Colleen Beaumier |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| SCOTIA RAINBOW
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1500
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| FISHERIES AND OCEANS
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1505
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| 100TH BIRTHDAY GREETINGS TO THE QUEEN MOTHER
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Motion
|
1510
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| PETITIONS
|
| Older Workers Assistance
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Trade
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| The Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1515
| The Senate
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Genetically modified organisms
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Importation of plutonium
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Comments during Question Period
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| The Deputy Speaker |
1520
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Department of Justice
|
| Mr. John Bryden |
1525
1530
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| The Deputy Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Health Care
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Mr. John Duncan |
1535
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1540
1545
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1550
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
1555
1600
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1605
1610
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1615
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
1620
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1625
1630
1635
1640
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1645
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1650
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1655
1700
1705
1710
1715
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1720
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Natural Resources and Government Operations
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
1725
| Justice and Human Rights
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Health Care
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
1730
| Division on amendment deferred
|
| MAIN ESTIMATES, 2000-01
|
| Concurrence in Vote 5—Human Resources Development
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 1
|
1735
1740
1745
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1750
1755
| Mr. John Williams |
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1800
| Mr. John Williams |
1805
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1810
| Mr. John Solomon |
1815
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1820
1825
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1830
1835
1840
1845
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1850
| Mr. John Solomon |
1855
1900
1905
1910
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1915
1920
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1925
1930
1935
1940
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1945
| Mr. John Williams |
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1950
| Mr. Tony Ianno |
1955
2000
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
2005
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Justice and Human Rights
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Main Estimates, 2000-01
|
| Motion No. 1
|
| Mr. John Williams |
2010
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
2015
2020
| Mr. Tony Ianno |
2025
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
2030
2035
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
2040
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
2045
2050
| Mr. John Williams |
2055
| Mr. Paul Crête |
2100
| Allotted Day—Health Care
|
| Motion
|
2130
(Division 1366)
| Amendment negatived
|
(Division 1367)
| Motion negatived
|
| Main Estimates, 2000-01
|
| Motion No. 1.
|
(Division 1368)
| Motion No. 1 agreed to
|
2135
| Concurrence in Vote 1—Environment
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 2
|
(Division 1369)
| Concurrence in Vote 1—Fisheries and Oceans
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 3
|
(Division 1370)
| Concurrence in Vote 1—Health
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 4
|
(Division 1371)
| Concurrence in Vote 1—Human Resources Development
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 5
|
(Division 1372)
| Concurrence in Vote 1—National Defence
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 6
|
(Division 1373)
| Concurrence in Vote 1—Privy Council
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 7
|
(Division 1374)
| Concurrence in Vote 1—Solicitor General
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 8
|
(Division 1375)
| Concurrence in Vote 25—Solicitor General
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 9
|
(Division 1376)
| Concurrence in Vote 1—Public Works and Government Services
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 10
|
(Division 1377)
| Concurrence in Vote 5—Public Works and Government Services
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 11
|
(Division 1378)
| Concurrence in Vote 1—Indian Affairs and Northern
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 12
|
(Division 1379)
| Motions Nos. 2 to 12 inclusive agreed to
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion for concurrence
|
(Division 1380)
| Motion agreed to
|
| Bill C-42. First reading
|
| Bill C-42 Second Reading
|
(Division 1381)
| Motion agreed to
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
2140
| Motion for concurrence
|
(Division 1382)
| Motion agreed
|
| Third Reading
|
(Division 1383)
| Motion agreed to
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| NATURAL GAS
|
| Motion
|
2150
(Division 1384)
| Motion negatived
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-18. Third reading
|
(Division 1385)
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 115
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, June 15, 2000
The House met at 9 a.m.
Prayers
0900
[English]
POINTS OF ORDER
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule on the
point of order raised on June 5, 2000 by the hon. opposition
House leader concerning Bill C-201, formerly known as an act to
amend the Competition Act (protection of those who purchase
products from vertically integrated suppliers who compete with
them at retail) in the name of the hon. member for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, which is presently on the order of
precedence.
[Translation]
At the outset, I would like to thank the opposition House
leader, the leader of the government in the House of Commons and
the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge for their
contributions in this matter.
[English]
Standing Order 86(1) allows a private member's bill considered
in a previous session to be reinstated at the same stage at which
it stood at the time of prorogation. At the time of prorogation
the bill in question, previously Bill C-235, had been reported
from the Standing Committee on Industry with amendments that
deleted the title and all the clauses of the bill and it was set
down for consideration at report stage.
When the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge introduced
his bill on October 14, 1999, pursuant to Standing Order 86(1),
it was again placed on the order of precedence at the report
stage with its title and clauses deleted.
0905
[Translation]
On a number of occasions during the present session, the hon.
member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge has given notice that he could
not be present in the House to go forward with his bill.
Most of the time it was possible to arrange an exchange of positions
on the order of precedence with another member. However, on two
occasions, on February 15 and on June 2, the House was informed
that it had not been possible to arrange an exchange of
positions on the order of precedence for Private Members'
Business Hour for the following sitting day.
Consequently, Private Members' Business Hour had to be cancelled
and the hon. member's bill was dropped to the bottom of the
order of precedence.
[English]
On June 5 the opposition House leader expressed concern about
the number of times exchanges had been arranged for Bill C-201,
and the fact that when no exchange of items on the order of
precedence was possible, Private Members' Business could not take
place.
On June 7 the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge
responded to the point of order raised by the opposition House
leader, and the Speaker undertook to return to the House with a
ruling, which I am now providing.
Bill C-201 is once again working its way up the order of
precedence, while the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge
seeks a way to restore, through amendments, the effect of Bill
C-201. However, the hon. member will agree that the situation is
unfair to other hon. members who have items in the list outside
the order of precedence that they consider of equal importance
but which are unable to advance.
Standing Order 94(1)(a) allows the Speaker to ensure the orderly
conduct of Private Members' Business and, with that in mind, the
Chair has decided to allow the hon. member for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge a further 48 hours to place on the
notice paper motions in amendment to restore the title and
clauses.
At the expiration of the 48 hours, if no motions in amendment
are placed on notice, I hereby instruct the clerk to remove Bill
C-201 from the order of precedence, the order for concurrence at
report stage to be discharged and the bill withdrawn.
[Translation]
As I stated the other day, I would encourage the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to consider this
specific issue and to provide the House with some guidance as to
how it should proceed in the future with similar cases
[English]
The Chair would like to take this opportunity to thank all hon.
members for their patience in awaiting this decision.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been the usual
consultations with House leaders, and I believe you would find
unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That, when the House adjourns this day, it shall stand adjourned
until Monday, September 18, 2000, provided that the provisions of
Standing Order 28(4) shall apply as if the House had been
adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 28(2).
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. government House leader
have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES FOR 1999-2000
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the
table a document entitled “Individual Members' Expenditures for
the Fiscal Year 1999-2000”.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to the standing orders, I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 23
petitions.
* * *
CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE REPORT
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, under Standing 32(2) of the House of Commons,
copies of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, 1999 public
report.
* * *
0910
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I wish to present the fourth report of the Standing Committee on
Citizenship and Immigration requesting authorization to travel in
the fall of 2000 to hear from Canadians on Bill C-32, Canada's
most important new immigration bill.
CANADIAN HERITAGE
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to present, in both official languages, the second
report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Pursuant
to Standing Order 108(2), the committee considered the Canadian
book industry and reports its findings and recommendations.
[Translation]
The book publishing industry is important to Canada. We
therefore hope our recommendations can help reinforce that
industry.
I thank the members of all parties, the witnesses and all those
who submitted briefs, as well as the committee staff for their
support.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Canadian
Heritage.
Pursuant to its order of reference dated Tuesday, November 30,
1999, the committee has considered the subject matter of Bill
C-224, an act to establish, by the beginning of the 21st century,
an exhibit in the Canadian Museum of Civilization to recognize
crimes against humanity, as defined by the United Nations, that
have been perpetrated during the 20th century, and has agreed to
report its findings and recommendations.
[Translation]
A number of the witnesses expressed appreciation of Bill C-224,
seeing it as an excellent starting point.
To that end, the committee offers some directions with the
potential of providing respectful follow-up to the pursuit of the
objectives set out in this bill, which are research, education
and honouring the memory of the victims of genocide and crimes
against humanity.
The committee expressed its thanks to the hon. member for
Brampton Centre for bringing this matter to its attention.
[English]
FINANCE
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the ninth report of the
Standing Committee on Finance entitled “Challenge of Change: A
Study of Cost Recovery”.
The finance committee has been very much focused on getting
government right. Whether it be the structure of the tax system
or the regulation of the financial institutions, the committee
has sought to ensure that government initiatives are delivered
efficiently and provide a real net worth to Canadians.
Public policy has an economy wide impact on our productivity and
our standard of living. However, to be good, policy must not
only be right, it must be properly implemented. This is the
message the committee received during its hearings on the federal
government's user charge and cost recovery policy.
As chair, I would like to thank the members of the committee for
their work and commitment to this study, a commitment evidenced
by their unanimous support for its recommendations. I would also
like to thank the many witnesses who took the time to prepare
briefs and appear before the committee. A very special thanks to
the clerk, the researchers and the entire committee staff for
their excellent work.
Finally, I would like to note that pursuant to Standing Order
109, the committee is requesting a comprehensive government
response to this report.
AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 109, I am pleased to table, in both official
languages, the government's response to the first report of the
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food entitled “Making
the Farm Income Safety Net Stronger and More Responsive to
Farmers' Needs”, which was tabled in the House of Commons on
February 22, 2000.
The Deputy Speaker: We have moved past tabling of
documents. Does the House give its consent to the hon.
parliamentary secretary to table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 37th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding improved
financial reporting to parliament project. The report was
prepared by the subcommittee on improved financial reporting to
parliament.
This is a subject of continuing challenge for colleagues in the
House. I would like to commend the chair, the hon. member for
Mississauga South, the subcommittee's hardworking members and the
staff of that subcommittee for their hard work in ensuring their
report would be a unanimous one and ready for presentation to the
House within a short timeframe.
I would also like to draw to the attention of the House the fact
that pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee is requesting
a comprehensive government response.
* * *
0915
COURTS ADMINISTRATION SERVICE ACT
Hon. Allan Rock (for Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-40, an act to
establish a body that provides administrative services to the
Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, the Court Martial
Appeal Court and the Tax Court of Canada, to amend the Federal
Court Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act and the Judges Act, and to
make related and consequential amendments to other acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CIVILIAN WAR-RELATED BENEFITS ACT
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-41, an act to amend
the statute law in relation to veterans' benefits.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
EDUCATION BENEFITS ACT
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-491, an act respecting education benefits for
spouses and children of certain deceased federal enforcement
officials.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to introduce
my private member's bill, an act respecting education benefits
for spouses and children of certain deceased federal enforcement
officials.
This bill proposes to fund the equivalent of one post-secondary
degree for children and spouses of federal enforcement officials
who have died as a result of injuries received or illness
contracted in the discharge of their duties.
The definition of a federal enforcement official in my bill is
slightly different from the current definition of peace officer
contained in federal legislation. This bill will apply to
certain employees of Correctional Service Canada, Canada Customs
and Revenue Agency, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Parks
Canada, Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Department of
Citizenship and Immigration, RCMP officers, and members of the
Canadian armed forces.
Between 1989 and 1999 a total of 23 federal police enforcement
officials were killed in the line of duty. During that same
time, 22 members of the Canadian armed forces serving in
peacekeeping missions abroad also lost their lives while serving
our country.
Given that federal enforcement officials risk their lives to
protect Canadians—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I have to remind the hon.
member for Cambridge that this is not a second reading speech.
It is a succinct explanation of the bill, and I know he will want
to draw his remarks to a very speedy conclusion.
Mr. Janko Peric: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce
that this bill has been supported by the Canadian Peace Officers'
Memorial Association, the Canadian Police Association, as well as
many other groups.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
PETITIONS
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour of presenting three petitions.
The first petition is signed by people from Saint-Eustache,
Montreal, Brossard, Chambly and Saint-Jean. The second one is
signed by people from Campbell's Bay, Gatineau, Hull and Aylmer,
and the third by people from Fleurimont, Deauville,
Bromptonville and Napierville. These petitioners are all
protesting excessively high gas prices.
0920
They state as follows: “Given the soaring price of gasoline at
the pump, the petitioners are calling on parliament to pass a
resolution to stop world petroleum cartels in order to bring
down overly high gasoline prices”.
[English]
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present this
morning.
The first is from some 37 constituents from Dawson Creek,
British Columbia in the riding of Prince George—Peace River
calling upon the House of Commons to fulfil the promise it made
in 1989 to end child poverty by the year 2000. I do not think it
will make it.
RIGHTS OF THE UNBORN
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to present a
petition signed by 47 constituents from Prince George in my
beautiful riding calling upon the House of Commons to enact
legislation against causing the death of the unborn at any stage
of prenatal life.
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
my constituents in the riding of Châteauguay, I am pleased to
table for the second time in a week a petition signed by 1,000
people protesting excessive gasoline prices.
The petitioners are asking the government to take action to stop
world oil cartels and to allocate funds for research into energy
alternatives, so as to help the poor.
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have
the pleasure of tabling three different petitions today.
The first petition is entitled “Save Canadian Public Health
Care: Stop two-tier American style health care moving into
Canada”. This petition adds to the tens of thousands of
signatures we have already tabled calling upon the federal
government to restore its funding to health care and to put our
public not for profit single tier system on a sustainable basis.
It calls upon the government to keep its election commitments to
introduce a national pharmacare program and a national home care
program. It also calls upon the government to finally stop the
privatization that threatens the sustainability of our health
care system.
CANADA POST
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to table a second petition which calls upon parliament
to repeal section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act which
discriminates against rural route mail couriers and denies them
the basic rights fundamental in a democratic society to organize
and to be able to fight for decent wages and working conditions.
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION ACT
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to table a third petition. It calls upon the
government to establish peace tax legislation by passing into law
the private member's bill of the member for Burnaby—Douglas, the
conscientious objection act. This is a private member's bill
that advocates enabling a portion of a taxpayer's taxes which are
earmarked for military purposes to be allocated for non-military
purposes.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present a petition from approximately 500
people in St. John's East who are very concerned that last year
the British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal to
reinstate subsection 4 of section 163.1 of the criminal code,
making possession of child pornography illegal in British
Columbia.
The petitioners are very concerned about that. They are
requesting that parliament invoke section 33 of the charter of
rights and freedoms, commonly known as the notwithstanding
clause, to override the B.C. Court of Appeal decision and to
reinstate subsection 4 of section 163.1 of the criminal code,
making possession of child pornography in B.C. illegal, and by
doing so, to reinforce and reaffirm our objection to the B.C.
Court of Appeal decision.
VIA RAIL
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the privilege of presenting some petitions that have been
duly certified under Standing Order 36.
The first relates to the request of the petitioners to work with
VIA Rail and the local governments in order to build a VIA Rail
station in my riding of Nepean—Carleton.
0925
ABORTION
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this petition relates to a national referendum on government
funding for abortions.
ASSISTED SUICIDE
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the next petition is opposed to aiding and abetting euthanasia.
RIGHTS OF THE UNBORN
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the next petition involves the same rights for the unborn as
those who are born.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the next petition involves child pornography.
AGE OF CONSENT
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this petition is with regard to the age of consent. The
petitioners request raising the age of sexual consent to 18
years.
IMMIGRATION
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this petition involves rescinding the right of landing fees on
immigrants and refugees.
MAMMOGRAPHY
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
this petition the petitioners call upon the government to develop
and enforce mandatory mammography quality assurance standards.
CANADA POST
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
this petition the petitioners call upon parliament to repeal
section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act.
* * *
IMPOVERISHED NATIONS
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this petition calls upon parliament to write off the debt of
impoverished nations.
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
finally, this petition calls upon the government to end child
poverty by the year 2000.
FIJI
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I too have the honour to
table a petition.
This petition is from citizens of Canada who are residents of
Edmonton. They are members of the Fiji-Canada Association. Of
course we can understand they are very concerned about the coup
in Fiji.
They call upon parliament to take all kinds of action which I
will not read directly into the record. They want to ensure that
leaders and activists are prosecuted and punished under the law
and that a bill of rights is maintained. The petitioners ask and
would lobby the international community to impose sanctions on
Fiji such as as cutting off all economic aid, cutting off
diplomatic relations, cutting off all world bank loans, and
terminating Fiji's participation in peacekeeping forces.
These Canadian Fijians are concerned. I appreciate having been
given the time to lay this petition on the table.
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICING
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to table a petition signed by over 200 constituents in my riding
of Laurentides.
The petitioners are urging parliament to pass a resolution to
stop world petroleum cartels in order to bring down overly high
gasoline prices. They are also calling for adequate funding for
research on energy alternatives to ensure that, in the near
future, Canadians will be free from the obligation to use
petroleum as the main source of energy.
[English]
PRODUCTIVITY ENHANCEMENT
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present. In the first
petition, the petitioners call upon parliament to undertake a
comprehensive strategy for productivity enhancement.
THE BUDGET
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this petition calls upon parliament to continue to use
prudent economic assumptions in the formulation of the budget.
DEBT REDUCTION
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this petition calls upon parliament to continue to apply
the contingency reserve set at $3 billion toward debt reduction.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the next petition, the petitioners call upon
parliament to continue to support research and development.
TAXATION
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this petition calls upon parliament to further increase
the basic personal exemption amount.
CHILD TAX BENEFIT
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this petition calls upon parliament to build on previous
actions to assist families under the Canada child tax benefit.
FOREIGN PROPERTY RULE
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the final petition I present calls upon parliament to
increase the foreign property rule.
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to table eight different
petitions containing tens of thousands of names.
In the first petition, the petitioners call on the government to
revisit the issue of hepatitis C.
BIOARTIFICIAL KIDNEY
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the second petition I present calls on the
government to support the bioartificial kidney program.
THE SENATE
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I present a petition which calls on the government
to summon a fit and qualified person democratically elected to
represent Manitoba in the Senate.
SNOWBIRDS
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in the next petition I present the petitioners call
for the government to allow the continuation of the Canadian
forces Snowbirds 431 Air Demonstration Squadron through funding
and legislation.
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the next petition calls on the government to ensure
that emergency compensation is immediately available to the
farmers who have not been well served by AIDA.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I present a petition which calls upon parliament to
withdraw Bill C-23, affirming the opposite sex definition of
marriage in legislation and ensure that marriage is recognized as
a unique institution.
CHILDREN
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, my next petition calls upon parliament to use
federal budget 2000 to do some multi-year planning to improve the
well-being of Canada's children.
CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in the last petition, the petitioners request that
government pass legislation to ensure that registered charities,
not for profit groups and federal political parties operate on
the same level playing field.
0930
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I am pleased to table a petition signed by
several constituents in the riding of Charlevoix.
This petition is in addition to the many other ones already
tabled in the House about the soaring price of gasoline.
The petitioners are asking the government to take action to
bring down overly high crude oil prices and to allocate adequate
funds for research into energy alternatives.
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to present three petitions
with hundreds of signatures from my constituency and all over
Manitoba, adding to the thousands of other names we have
presented in the House regarding the number one concern of
Canadians, the future of our health care system.
The petitioners express concern about the lack of leadership by
the federal government and the failure of the government to
preserve medicare. They call upon the government to restore
transfer payments, to oppose bill 11, and to move on its election
promises of home care and pharmacare.
They want immediate action to save public health care and to
stop two tier American style health care from coming to Canada.
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have petitions I would like to present to parliament
with the names of many people who ask the government to be
careful with the use of permanent landing status for people who
misuse marriage to get into the country. They would rather have
ministerial permits issued.
I have petitions from dozens of people who are concerned about
the immigration problems on the west coast.
DONATIONS
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have petitions from scores of people who say that
political donations receive a better break than charitable
donations and they are upset about that.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have signatures from hundreds of citizens concerned
about pornography and the fact that the government has not made
any move on banning child pornography.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, thousands of people are concerned about the definition
of marriage and that it should be maintained as between a man and
a woman.
SUPREMACY OF GOD
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, tens of thousands of people are concerned about the
supremacy of God.
TAXATION
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance):
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have petitions to present representing
millions of Canadians who are saying that taxes are too high and
it is time to bring them down.
I think all Canadians have said that it is time the government
started to listen to the concerns of grassroots Canadians.
[Translation]
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour today of presenting two petitions.
The first is signed by some one hundred people from Manitoba and
the second by some fifty from New Brunswick.
The petitioners are calling for a stop to be put to the opening
of private hospitals and the return of federal funding for health
care, an immediate increase in federal funding for health care to
25% and the implementation of a national home care program and
national drug plan.
Clearly, these petitioners do not believe in the kind of health
care people have in the United States, and this is mentioned in
the petition.
[English]
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to
present a petition signed by hundreds of Canadians who are
worried about the underfunded Canadian medicare system.
The Liberal government's underfunding has led to a shortage of
nurses, hospital beds and emergency room spaces. They want the
government to fund medicare up to 25%.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
petition is also on the matter of health care. I am delighted
that the Minister of Health is in the precincts.
People from Moose Jaw are very concerned that the federal
government is paying only 13.5 cents on every dollar for health
care. If this is not corrected, we are on our way to two tier
American style health care in Canada. There is also concern
expressed about bill 11. We know what the good voters in
Edmonton thought about that earlier this week.
The petitioners call upon parliament to stop for profit
hospitals and restore federal funding for health care. I am
pleased to present the petition on behalf of the residents of
Moose Jaw.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
wonder if there might be consent in the House to revert to
tabling of committee reports to allow the chair of the Standing
Joint Committee on Official Languages to table a report from that
committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
0935
[Translation]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
first like to thank those present in the House for giving me this
opportunity.
I have the honour today to present, in both official languages,
the third report of the Standing Joint Committee on Official
Languages.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(4)(b) of the House of Commons
and section 88 of the Official Languages Act, a consolidated
statute of Canada, your committee is conducting a study on the
application of part VII of the Official Languages Act, and has
decided to table an interim report.
[English]
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would like consent, as I just missed petitions, to
present two petitions. It will take less than a minute.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent to
revert to the presentation of petitions?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[Translation]
PETITIONS
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the hon. members for their consent.
I would like to table two petitions. The first concerns rural
mail couriers. The petitioners are asking parliament to repeal
subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act.
[English]
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition asks parliament to declare that Canada objects to
the national missile defence program of the United States and to
play a leadership role in banning nuclear weapons and missile
flight tests.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 86 will be answered today.
.[Text]
Question No. 86—Mr. Ted White:
With respect to the RCMP ownership of 0.50 calibre Browning M2
machine guns under the armoured public and police safety vehicle
program: (a) what are the circumstnaces under which this
program might be deployed by the RCMP; and (b) would the RCMP,
in such circumstances, be fulfilling a role which would normally
be carried out by the military?
Hon. Lawrence MacAuley (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Currently, the .50 calibre machine gun capability of the
RCMP is restricted to the armoured public and police safety
vehicle program and could be deployed when there is a requirement
for the protection provide by such vehicles. Before any such
deployment is authorized, very careful consideration is given to
the situation. Restrictions on the deployment of the program's
full capability could be imposed prior to any such authorization.
The RCMP cannot comment on the role of the military in Canada;
however, there are provisions in the National Defence Act, for
the military, upon request, to lend assistance to civilian
authority, should the situation be beyond the capability of the
police.
The RCMP is dedicated to the safety and protection of the
Canadian public.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—HEALTH CARE
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance) moved:
That this House recognize that the health care
system in Canada is in crisis, the status quo is not an option,
and the system that we have today is not sustainable; and,
accordingly, that this House call upon the government to develop
a plan to modernize the Canadian health care system, and to work
with the provinces to encourage positive co-operative relations.
The Deputy Speaker: Since today is the final allotted day
for the supply period ending June 23, 2000, the House will go
through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of the
supply bill.
In view of recent practices, do hon. members agree that the
bill be distributed now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to have
moved this motion today. I intend to try to share some of what
Canadians have been saying about the health care system and to
put forward some of the solutions we would like Canadians to look
at.
We are opposed to a two tier, U.S. for profit health care
system. Through the course of the day members of my party and I
will demonstrate exactly what we see as the future for health
care and the direction it might go.
It is fair to say that Canadians are extremely concerned about
their health care system. I will quote from some recent articles
that have appeared in newspapers right across the country. One
headline read “Gloom deepens about health care, new polls
show”. Some 78% of Canadians think the health care system in
their province is in crisis and 75% believe the system currently
is facing a major crisis around funding. So the headlines go:
“Mediocre health care called brain drain factor”.
All kinds of other health care shocks are part of the system. We
hear about over 1,000 people in Quebec on waiting lists for heart
surgery.
Cancer patients are waiting sometimes up to three months before
they can get any treatment.
0940
I will be sharing my time with the member for Fraser Valley. I
will come back after that to carry on with some of the solutions
I propose for the health care system.
What is wrong with this system? If we take a broad view we find
there are many turf wars. There are turf wars between the
federal and provincial governments. Things are happening within
the system such as the so-called driveby smears that are
occurring. There is a $1.8 million ad campaign against the
Ontario government. There is a real ongoing battle between the
federal and the provincial governments.
Canadians do not care who fixes the health system. They want
Canadians to fix the health care system, both provincially and
federally.
We also have system centred health care. We are always
concerned about the system and seldom seem to talk about the
patient. We do not talk about what is best for patients, be they
senior citizens who are having difficulties finding a place to go
for their declining years or people with impending heart surgery
to save their lives. We do not talk about individual people. We
always talk about the system and saving the system. That is
wrong. We have to change that focus.
As well we have to take a look at a state run, socialized type
of system. Maybe it works in North Korea and in Cuba, but I am
not sure it works in modern Canada. We also have to look at
doctor and nurse shortages. We have to look at all groups that
are concerned about health care. We have to end the turf wars.
We have to get down to a patient centred focus where health care
should be.
We have to talk about funding. Obviously we can go back in
history to the sixties when a 50:50 agreement was made by the
provinces and the federal government. The federal government
obviously has different responsibilities from those of the
provinces but they agreed to a common funding. In 1977 it was
agreed to change the way the funding occurred from strictly
dollars to a dollar and tax points system. We could go into
great depth and detail about how it works, but I do not think
that is the point of today's debate.
In 1995 the government again changed the system and the method
of funding to the CHST grants involving a block of money. We
really lost control of what was happening and how the system was
being monitored. The auditing of the system is just not there.
This block of money is transferred. We do not know how provinces
are using it or what they are using it for. No one seems to know
what anything costs.
We should address the fact that in 1993 the amount of money
being transferred by the federal government was $18.8 billion. By
1998 it had declined to $12.5 billion or close to a 40% cut in
funding by the federal government. Since then it has increased
to $14.5 billion this year and $15.5 billion next year. If we
add each year's cut in funding from the 1993 levels, the bottom
line is that today's total would be a cut of about $24 billion in
federal funding. That is the point that the Ontario government
is trying to make to the health minister and which the health
minister seems to fail to understand.
Instead we enter into a kind of shell game with the Prime
Minister saying that he is transferring more money than ever
before. Even in Las Vegas this sort of shell game would not be
accepted by the players in that city.
What is happening with the funding? The federal government has
definitely cut the funding and the provinces are saying it must
at least return it to 1993 levels. To this point we have no
response. Nothing has happened.
0945
We need to look at the rating of our health care system. We
need to look at a study done by the OECD on the 29 industrialized
countries of the world. We find that we spend somewhere between
the fourth and fifth most on health care of those industrialized
countries. We spend 9.2% to 9.8% of our GDP on health care.
That is similar to most of those other top industrialized
countries.
The problem is that in many other areas we are in the bottom
third of the rating of those countries in terms of the delivery
of service. If we spend the fourth most and we are the 23rd
best, there is obviously something wrong. It is not to point
fingers or to blame anyone; it is a matter of looking at what is
wrong and why it is happening.
As well, the World Health Organization is coming out with a
report, which we have seen parts of already. On June 21 that
report will be made public. Again, there will be an evaluation
of the 181 countries in the World Health Organization. In the
report, on the area of life expectancy, it indicates that we have
dropped from second to twelfth.
The decline of Canada and Canada's health care system is of
major concern to Canadians. That is why 78% of Canadians say
that their health care system is in crisis. That is why they are
asking and demanding that Canadian politicians, provincial and
federal, look at health care, identify what is wrong and fix the
system.
We have heard a lot of talk in the House about how the
government cares about health care. However, we really have not
seen very much. We pretty much have a white page of solutions
coming from the government. It is not a white paper; it is just
a white blank page as far as the solutions that the government is
putting forward.
I could go on and talk about education, the brain drain, the
lack of technology and the huge problems we have. I had the
occasion to tour a Swiss hospital recently. I could not believe
the difference between the Swiss hospital and some of the
hospitals I have toured in Canada. The emergency room crisis,
the aging population and the rising drug costs are all things
that Canadians expect us to deal with.
I want to tempt you, Mr. Speaker, to be here a little later in
the day when I will talk about the solutions to health care. I
will also tempt the health minister to be here as well to hear
the proposals from the Canadian Alliance as to what we should do
with the provinces to fix the health care system.
Because my time is up, I will turn it over to the House leader
for the official opposition.
The Deputy Speaker: Before we hear from the House leader
for the official opposition, there are five minutes for questions
and comments.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member talked about a blank page. Yesterday, I had an
opportunity to visit the Canadian Alliance website to look at
the proposed solutions to the challenges of health care and I
found that there was a blank white page.
There is a common discussion going on among all people
interested in health care in Canada about the need for additional
injections of money, but also money where it is targeted to areas
in which there will be meaningful change and improvement in the
delivery of health care to Canadians.
It does not take a lot of detail to answer.
I simply ask the member whether the Alliance believes that the
government needs to transfer more money to the provinces for
health care, or whether moneys should be put in with the
understanding that there be conditions on measurable standards so
that Canadians fully believe and understand that they are getting
quality health care.
0950
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I became the
critic on January 1. We are in the middle of a leadership race.
I can assure the House that our web page will be full of health
care solutions as we proceed in this process.
The hon. member's question is whether we should put more money
in. The point is that we spend about the fourth most of the
industrialized countries on health care and we are in the bottom
third in terms of our ratings. We are 23rd in the area of
technology and so on. If we are in the bottom third with the
fourth best investment, money is obviously not the only answer.
It is an answer to return some of the funding to go to the table
with the provinces so they will negotiate. We need that money on
the table, but that is not the key to solving this problem of
health care. I think Canadians know that. I think people in the
health industry know that. I think the provincial health
ministers know that.
It is a matter of co-operation with them, and coming to the table
with an open slate. That is the point that has to be made and
that is the point we will continue to make. We are in the
process of consulting with Canadians. We intend to do that
extensively through the fall. At that point, if the government
is not asking the necessary questions of Canadians, we will do
that for the government.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate the member for his motion today. I think
it is timely and worthy of debate.
The member mentioned that his party is not in favour of a two
tier system. Everyone heard him say that. My question relates
to the leadership of his party, the CA, formerly known as the
Reform Party. That party has one candidate vying for its
leadership who actually launched his campaign on the basis of a
two tier system of health care.
Is the hon. member suggesting that this candidate is out of the
race and he will not win it? Where does this fit in? How can
the member stand in his place and suggest that his party does not
stand for that when one of the potential leaders of his party is
actually campaigning on that very issue?
I think it is presumptuous of the member to think that his party
does not stand for that. The leadership race is not over. We
will not know until June 24 who will win the race. Is he not
pre-empting his potential leader?
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, obviously in a leadership
race, as he knows and everyone in the House knows, leadership
candidates can pretty much say what they want. The point is what
happens here. What the party says, what the shadow cabinet looks
at and what caucus looks at is what is party policy.
I would remind the member that there was a candidate in the race
for the leadership of his party, Mr. Orchard, who obviously was
against free trade and against a lot of the things which that
party introduced and stood for. I think that says it all.
Obviously we will wait until June 24 to see what the leadership
stands for.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to talk about what
Canadians have described as their number one concern, both
federally and provincially. They have asked their political
leaders to deal with what they see as the decline of the health
care system.
We saw on the news last night that the premier of Saskatchewan
has struck a committee and a public inquiry, so to speak, into
the status of health care in Saskatchewan. It is indicative of
what we are going to see increasingly in Canada, which is a
grasping for new ideas to make sure that the health care system
that we all depend on will be healthy as we go into this new
century.
The comments of the Saskatchewan premier last night on the news
were interesting. He was asked “Is this an attempt to pressure
the federal government to hold a similar type of conference to
bring people together to discuss new ideas?” He said “Maybe in
part”.
I think he understated the case. Certainly many provincial
health ministers have been in contact with us, saying that they
are very nervous that the federal government has backed away from
the idea of the need for all first ministers to get together in a
formal way to discuss this very important issue. They are acting
a little like skittish fillies. They are prancing around.
Everybody wants to get in on it, but they are not sure exactly
whether the federal government will provide leadership.
0955
I hope the questions which are discussed and debated today by
all sides of the House, especially by the health minister, will
address the big problem. The philosophical question is where we
will go with this, which is obviously the big problem for
Canadians.
There are only so many ways to fund health care, and it does not
take long to list them. There are federal and provincial tax
dollars involved in the system. There are plans that help to
provide and augment those who are fortunate enough to have
access. Whether it be an insurance plan, a medical service plan
or a provincial plan, people need to know what role those
contributory plans will play in the system.
Then there are private funds, which of course fund a lot of the
health care system. Anyone who has paid for their own
prescriptions, paid fees to a chiropractor or to another health
care professional for services that are not covered under the
provincial health care system knows that private money is used
extensively in the health care system, and that will continue.
The government with its tax dollars, the insurance people and
the people with the private funds have to lock themselves in a
room and say “When we come out of here we will decide how this
system will be paid for”. It has to be paid for, but what will
be the provincial role and what will be the federal role? What
will be the insurance role? What will we ask insurance programs
to look after?
No one will deny that dental care is health care, yet dental
care is not covered under most provincial plans. People need
private insurance plans. In other words, it is already
extensively used. Now we need to decide, in this new, upcoming,
expensive 21st century medicare plan, who will pay for what.
Also important is the list of procedures that we will continue
to fund for all Canadians. It is no secret, as one of the
architects of health care said on the news again last night, that
no one thought about the $3 million CAT scan, no one thought
about the MRIs and no one thought about the expensive drug
treatment programs which are so effective but so expensive when
we started this whole medicare plan.
Canadians see these programs, they want to have access to them,
but they are told that they will have to wait months for the MRI
that should be prescribed for them. It is a modern health care
treatment to which Canadians deserve access, and timely access.
It is not enough to say there is universal accessibility under
the Canada Health Act if universal accessibility means that a
person has to wait as long as everybody else. It is no good to
tell someone that they are just the same as everybody else
because they get to wait a year for their treatment. That is not
universal accessibility, that is universal inaccessibility.
While it may be equal, it is not fair. I would ask the minister
to please address that.
I would also ask the minister to talk about some innovative
ideas to which I hope all Canadians and all politicians will be
open. We all talk about how we do not want the American system.
The American system is nothing like our system. To most
Canadians it is a frightening thing. The thought of breaking
your leg and losing your house as a result, and all of the horror
stories that we read about from time to time, make Canadians
nervous. I do not think Canadians want to go there, but if we
are not going there, then what new systems will we put in place?
The minister should not say we just have to be innovative, he
should explain what it is that we will be doing differently.
There are all kinds of innovative ideas. We have talked about
savings plans for the private portion that we already pay for in
our health care system. Are there ways through tax breaks to
encourage people to save funds to look after the health of
themselves and their families into the future? What about ideas
such as those of Michael Walker from the Fraser Institute? I
thought he had an innovative idea. He said “Please, do not
change the system that allows everyone universal access to the
public health care system, but put in place a system that rewards
people who do not abuse the health care system”.
In other words, he is saying that we should have a plan that is
accessible to everyone, but for those who look after themselves,
do not smoke, do not abuse themselves and do not need the health
care system because they have taken care of themselves, they
should reap a reward for that. Maybe we should look at that kind
of thing.
1000
I am sure the health minister will deal with the whole issue of
preventive care. What is the role of the federal government in
preventive care? Is it primarily a provincial jurisdiction?
Largely, I think it is because so many of the social programs are
administered by provincial governments. However, he should
detail again what it is that the federal government sees as its
role. Is there an overarching theme?
One of our members has put forward the idea of a headstart
program. I know there is already an aboriginal headstart because
that is a federal jurisdiction. We put in an aboriginal
headstart to try to deflect some of the high risk kids into
treatment, preventive therapy and preventive work in order to
keep them out of the health care system when they grow up. Is
there a role for all Canadians or does the federal government
want to see that dealt with at the provincial level?
It is time to delineate the lines of authority. It is time to
start talking about what can and should be done federally, what
can and should be done provincially and to be honest with
Canadians about what can be, should be and must be done
privately. We should be telling them forthrightly what we can do
for them and what we cannot do for them.
This is just like job creation. There are some things people
have to do on their own. There is a role for government but
there is also a role it will take on. I hope the minister will
address what he sees as the delineation of authority and the
programs he sees the federal government maintaining or enhancing,
and then to be honest with the provinces and Canadians about the
programs that he will not maintain or enhance.
I hope the government and the minister will talk about the
Canada Health Act. It is an old act that has been around for
decades and has served Canadians pretty well. However, time and
again we have seen the need to bring it forward and open it up,
not necessarily for change, but to open it up for debate.
There are five pillars to the Canada Health Act. Should there
be six? Should we define what we mean by universally accessible?
What about portable? If portable means we can get no service in
this province just like we can get no service in the next
province, there is no use in it being portable.
Let us describe what we want in the Canada Health Act. Let us
not be afraid to talk about it. This is not to say that we will
throw the whole thing out. Let us discuss whether there is a way
in the 21st century to anticipate the expensive procedures, the
expensive drug treatments and the aging population. Is there
something we need to do with the Canada Health Act to make all
those things possible? Maybe there is not but I think there is a
need to talk openly about the Canada Health Act. Maybe we could
add another pillar talking about a health guarantee for
Canadians, that they will get access to care, not just the same
as anybody else but in a timely fashion.
I look forward to the minister's speech. I would like to move:
That the motion be amended by inserting after the words
“Government to”, the word “immediately”.
We believe this is something that Canadians want this parliament
to be seized of forthwith.
1005
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the House will know that one of the leadership candidates for the
Canadian Alliance is proposing two tier health. It strikes me
that may very well be the reason why the Canadian Alliance's web
page on health initiatives is blank at this date. It is waiting
to find out which leader's policy it will have to follow.
I say that facetiously, but the member for Red Deer talked about
how money is not enough and maybe we need new initiatives. The
House leader for the Canadian Alliance said—maybe
unintentionally but he should clarify it—that we need new
initiatives and new ways to do things.
One of the things that he suggested was that maybe we needed
incentives for Canadians to save so that they will be able to
take care of their own health care needs in the future. That is
what he said, and he might want to check the blues. That to me
signals, whether it is specific or implied, that a two tiered
health strategy for the Canadian Alliance actually is a
possibility, that it thinks that somehow if we can get more money
into the hands of Canadians they will be able to take care of
their own health. As far as I can see, that is a total
abandonment of a public health care system.
I would like to ask the member whether or not he clearly
supports a publicly funded health care system to the exclusion of
any alternatives, including two tier health care.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, it looks like this is
going to go on all day. Of course I did not say that. What I
said was that a good portion of health care in Canada is paid for
by private funds. Anyone who has bought a prescription for
antibiotics for their kids and shelled out $10 or $15 for it has
paid for the health of their family out of their own funds.
If I go to a chiropractor I have pay for that because it is not
covered under general medical services. My back is being helped
but I have had to pay for that repeatedly.
When people get a massage, they have to pay for that themselves.
Even if the doctor has prescribed it, it is not covered under the
medical plan.
What I suggested was that when people have to pay out of their
own pockets, as they often do already for those kinds of
services, we should look at something in the tax system that
would allow people to save, like we do for retirement or for
education, the private portion that we already pay for, not new
things, should be looked after by the government in a way that
encourages and allows people to save, free of the tax man,
something that is specific to their health care. That is what I
was talking about.
The leadership candidate, who the member spoke about, is
frustrated with the current state of the health care system. I
guess it is a case of walking a mile in his shoes. He is an
emergency room doctor who has spent many years on the front lines
both here and overseas delivering health care to all kinds of
people. He spends the summers working on aboriginal reserves, in
very difficult situations, giving of his time and providing
services where no one else will go. What he sees is a
deterioration of the health care system that is very frustrating
to him. He has seen people lying on gurneys who are not
receiving treatment, and no matter what he, as a doctor,
prescribes, nothing happens to them.
What that leadership candidate says is that we have to talk
about options. I have thrown some options out this morning, but
as a medical doctor and an emergency room specialist, the member
for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has seen firsthand unnecessary
suffering and even death because people have not had access to
timely health care.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, in one way or another, in one form or another, each of
the leadership candidates for the Canadian Alliance has advocated
private involvement in the health care system, whether we are
talking about a parallel private health care system or a greater
share of the pie by private forces. That has been clear and it
has been stated by the previous health critic and the present
finance critic of the Alliance.
I would like to know what the official position is of the
Canadian Alliance. Does it support a parallel private health
care system, yes or no?
1010
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Canada already has a
private health care system. If we get our teeth fixed by a
dentist, that is private. We pay for it out of our hip pockets.
If we go to a chiropractor or to many other treatments, they are
private.
In my province of British Columbia, the provincial NDP
government sends needy health care patients to the United States
for treatment. A guy I used to work with needed cancer treatment
but the cancer clinic was full. The NDP government not only paid
for his treatment in Bellingham, it gave him vouchers to travel
back and forth. When he had to stay overnight, the it paid for
him to travel to the United States and paid for his overnight
stay in a private American health care clinic to receive
treatment.
For anyone to say that there is no private health care
involvement in the system is incorrect. There is, absolutely.
That is why we need to discuss what that involvement should be
and how we can ensure that all Canadians have access in a timely
way to the health care they need.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I appreciate the opportunity today to speak to this issue. I
think it is fitting that on the last day of the session of this
parliament we spend our time talking about the number one issue
on the minds of Canadians across the country.
[Translation]
It is clear that what we are discussing today is a subject of
vital importance to Canadians.
The state of our health system is of major concern to our fellow
Canadians. It is obvious, and we must be frank during this
debate, that we are faced with some major challenges.
We can discuss the long waiting lists, the over-crowded emergency
rooms, the shortages of physicians and nurses.
[English]
In these circumstances concrete action is required from all
governments working together.
In responding to the motion put before the House by the Canadian
Alliance Party today, let me make three points. The first is
that in the efforts we make to solve the problems facing Canadian
health care, we must stick to the principles that are spelled out
in the Canada Health Act. Simply stated, a single tier, publicly
financed, universal system of health care provided for by the
Canada Health Act is the best possible approach to providing
health coverage for our population.
Let me explain why I say that. The member for Fraser Valley
described the Canada Health Act as an old act, as though somehow
in the 16 years since it was adopted by the House the statement
of the principles contained in that statute has become outmoded,
outdated or must be reframed.
I suggest that the evidence, our experience as Canadians and the
experience elsewhere in other countries shows that those five
principles in the Canada Health Act are as relevant and as
valuable today as they ever were. Those principles are as
important and as relevant to health care in Canada today as they
were when they were formulated by the Liberal government in 1984.
Why do I say that? I say that for two reasons: First, they
spell out the foundation of a system of universal health coverage
that is socially fair; and second, they provide for a way of
making services available to a population that is economically
efficient. I will deal with each of those in turn.
As to social fairness, we all know that Canadians cherish our
public system of health care. Why? It is because to them it is
about more than just doctors and hospitals; it is about values,
about being Canadian and about the way we want to live our lives.
1015
It is about the promise we have made to one another as Canadians
that we will look after each other in times of need regardless of
wealth or privilege. Access to needed services will not depend
on the state of one's bank account, but will be determined by the
state of one's health.
That is what the Canada Health Act is all about. It reflects
something that lies very close to the heart of this nation's
sense of self. For that reason, because of the social fairness
of public medicare in Canada, the principles of the Canada Health
Act are as important today as ever they were, and it is important
that we defend them.
The second reason is economic efficiency. We do not talk about
this often enough. Public medicare in Canada allows us to
provide health coverage for the population in a way that is less
expensive than approaches taken in other nations. Let us look at
the comparative situation between Canada and our closest
neighbour, the United States. We are so much alike in so many
ways, but there are important distinctions that demonstrate the
economic value of Canadian medicare.
At the moment, as the member for Red Deer observed this morning,
Canadian medicare costs just over 9% of our gross domestic
product. For that we insure 100% of our population for medically
necessary services. In the United States, health costs are 14.2%
of the gross domestic product. Notwithstanding that much higher
level of spending, coverage is provided for only part of the
population. Today there are 43 million Americans who have no
health coverage. There are 100 million Americans who are
underinsured and who worry that one day they may have to choose
between their health and their homes.
Why is it that we can provide health insurance for everyone for
9% of our gross domestic product and the Americans spend 14.2%
and leave so many tens of millions uninsured? It is because the
single payer publicly financed universal coverage provided for in
the principles of the Canada Health Act is economically
efficient. The overhead in the American system is a huge source
of cost with so many people providing coverage with private
insurers. I will give an example.
Last year a professor from the United States was in Toronto at a
conference on this very subject. He described a hospital in
Boston which had about the same number of beds as a Toronto
hospital. In the Boston hospital there were 317 people in the
billings and collection department. In the Toronto hospital
there were 16 people in the billings and collection department.
That is a vivid illustration of the difference between us.
A few weeks ago I was in Grand Falls, New Brunswick. During my
stay in that beautiful community I met a man who had come across
the Saint John River from Maine, which is immediately adjacent
and just a few moments away from Grand Falls. This American, a
resident of Maine, had recently had open heart surgery. He told
me that the cost of that surgery was $400,000. This man was
among the lucky ones. He had some private health insurance that
paid 80% of the cost, but simple arithmetic makes it clear that
this man from Maine was obligated to fork out $80,000 of his own
money to pay for that open heart surgery. That is a vivid
illustration of what happens when private for profit interests
take over the organization and delivery of needed medical care.
Surely the case is made to the satisfaction of the party
opposite that our first goal must be to hang on to those
principles, to preserve this public system of which we should be
so proud.
In Canada, unique in all the world, we have found a way to
provide health coverage to our population that is socially fair,
that reflects our values and speaks of the way we treat each
other as citizens. At the same time it makes economic sense.
1020
In the course of my work in the Prime Minister's government, I
have occasion to travel to other countries or to receive here in
Canada health ministers from abroad. In the course of those
meetings the subject has often arisen whether Canada should
import some of the features of foreign health systems and
particularly, as the alliance members would contend, the private
for profit element to, as some of them say, take the pressure off
our public system.
I can tell the House that without exception, every such foreign
minister to whom I have spoken has urged me not to follow that
course. They have urged me to hang on to our present public
system and to do what we must to fix it, but not to go down the
road of the private parallel health system. Why is that? They
usually give me the same reasons speaking from the experience in
their own countries.
They say that if we open the private parallel system of care,
then we will lose doctors, nurses and other health workers to the
private system. The problems we have now with providing medical
care professionals in the health care services will become even
worse. It is often the best and the brightest who leave the
system to practise privately.
They emphasized that the private parallel service will focus on
the simple repetitive procedures where profit is greatest. And
as soon as there is a problem, we know where that case will go. A
complication will be sent right back into the public system and
the public will end up subsidizing the private for profit sector.
These ministers also pointed out that the private for profit
element, the private parallel approach, has not resolved problems
in public medicare. England is an example where the waiting
lists are worse than ever. In England a person can go for the
private for profit parallel services, yet its waiting lists are
worse than ever.
The members ought not to think that the simple answer to the
problems that confront medicare is to establish the private for
profit parallel system. It does not work.
There is one other point that those from other countries urge
upon me in arguing that we should keep our public system of
medicare in Canada. They point out that if we allow the most
influential and wealthiest in our society to purchase access to
services, if we allow those with money and influence who help to
shape public opinion to purchase access to private services in
health care, then to that extent we will reduce the pressure on
governments across the country to fix the problems in medicare.
It will slip down the public agenda and the problems will not be
resolved. That is a very important consideration.
The first of the three points I wish to make this morning in
speaking to the member's resolution is that we should do what it
takes to hang on to our system of public medicare. It is
socially fair and economically efficient and it reflects the best
that this country has to offer.
My second point is that the public system of medicare must be
financed properly. It must have the money it needs to provide
the services that Canadians must have. That includes the
obligation of the Government of Canada to do its part in
financing public medicare.
In 1993 when this government was elected, the total value of
transfers to the provinces was about $28 billion per year. This
year the total value of transfers to the provinces will be over
$30 billion. We have not only restored the transfers, but we
have increased them in the time that this government has been in
office.
1025
Every year in Canada the federal government contributes
one-third to all public health spending. In the last two years we
have increased by 25% the cash transfer to provinces, including
$2.5 billion just three months ago.
I am not suggesting that we do enough. Indeed, I am an advocate
for increased federal funding for health care and for increasing
transfers to the provinces for health. The Prime Minister
himself has said that the Government of Canada is prepared to
increase transfers to provinces for health when we reach common
ground with the provinces on a common vision for the future of
medicare and an approach to the problems it faces.
The argument in favour of additional funding from the Government
of Canada is clear. In parts of the system more money is needed.
If Ottawa is to play its role, if it is to have the moral
authority to protect the principles of the Canada Health Act
across the country, it must have a credible voice at the table.
This government will ensure that the Government of Canada is at
the table to play its part in protecting public medicare in this
country.
That leads me to the third point I wish to make this morning and
it is simply this. It is not just money alone that is going to
succeed in solving the problems we confront in medicare. Our
goal must not be simply to make health care more expensive in
Canada. Our goal must be, by supporting provincial innovation,
to make access to quality health care available across this
country.
We must work with our provincial partners toward developing a
common vision and common approaches to the resolution of these
issues. We must speak with our provincial partners about
establishing these objectives, finding some way to measure the
performance of the health care system, and reporting to Canadians
whether we are making progress toward those objectives.
Do not misunderstand. I am not suggesting for a moment that
provincial governments are accountable to the Government of
Canada, but that governments of both orders are accountable to
the public of Canada. We must use common indicators to measure
the performance of the system and report to Canadians so that we
can work toward restoring public confidence in medicare by
proving and by establishing that we are making progress toward
our shared goals.
We must also identify areas of innovation. The hon. member for
Fraser Valley asked for innovative ideas. He wanted to know what
would work and what we could do that would help change the
system.
I suggest that we know that, from the national forum which the
Prime Minister chaired, to the excellent work the provinces have
done, including last week when they tabled their cost driver
report, to the innovations that the Government of Canada funded
through the health transition fund.
In 1997 we set aside $150 million in the health transition fund.
We have funded over 400 pilot projects across the country,
demonstrating the value of new approaches in home and community
care, in primary health care reform and in integrating health
services. We have learned from those pilot projects.
We have watched as provinces themselves have innovated. Now is
the time for the Government of Canada to get behind those
provincial efforts, to broaden and to accelerate the innovations
in which they have engaged in order to make real progress in
improving access to quality care.
I believe we know the broad directions we must take. It is now
up to governments to work together to ensure that we pursue them.
Primary health care reform and broadening the availability of
home and community care, those are the changes that will take the
pressure off our emergency rooms by making services accessible.
Dealing with shortfalls in medical equipment, investing in health
information technology to integrate our health care system and
sharing information among providers about patients, dealing with
the issues of the right number of doctors, nurses and specialists
to care for Canadians, these are the issues we must pursue in
common. We have begun.
1030
Let me also mention wellness because there is an important
federal role in that regard, not just to think about treating
those who are sick but to think about encouraging all to remain
well.
Cardiovascular disease continues to be the number one killer in
the country. There are four risk factors, three of which are
within our control: diet, exercise and smoking. That is why we
will continue our aggressive efforts against the tobacco industry
to encourage Canadians to understand the tactics of big tobacco,
to encourage young people not to begin and to protect children
from the tactics of big tobacco.
I stress that we must work with our provincial partners to
achieve these goals.
[Translation]
We have already begun. Six months ago, I wrote to my provincial
and territorial counterparts, inviting them to the negotiating
table, inviting them to work with me to identify priorities and
to develop an action plan to address these problems.
This afternoon, I shall be holding a conference call with them.
I trust that, in coming weeks, we will be face to face around
the negotiating table.
[English]
I want to ensure that we put before the first ministers when
they meet in September something upon which we can agree as
common ground and a common vision for the future.
In conclusion, I do not support the motion before the House. I
am as concerned as the next person about the issues in medicare.
We are confronting them with our provincial partners. I disagree
that the health system is in crisis. I believe we have grave
issues to deal with, but let me quote from the provincial report
last Friday wherein the provinces said:
Canada's publicly funded health care system is not in crisis.
Canadians continue to be well served by their health care system
but it is under serious challenges due to rising demand and cost
strictures.
I entirely agree with the provinces. Let us work together to
make sure that we preserve our greatest social asset, our public
medicare system.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, we heard a lot of motherhood, a lot of status quo and a
lot of comparison to the U.S. system which no Canadian wants. Why
even talk about it? It keeps coming out.
The real question is that today we spend $86 billion in public
money in total on health care. The projections of Health Canada
are that it will increase at 3%. That means that by the year
2020 we will be spending $160 billion on health care.
We want the new technology. We want the new medications. We
want all that. The Premier of Newfoundland says he is already
spending 42% of his budget on health care. Other provinces say
they are spending 30% of their budgets on health care. What is
the right amount to be spent on health care? If we are to spend
$160 billion, what about all the other things government has to
do?
The minister talked about the system not being in crisis, but
78% of Canadians say that the system is in crisis. The people
are saying that. The only people who do seem to be hearing it
are the politicians.
Hon. Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member
has to accept the fact that the provinces in their report last
Friday declared that the health care system was not in crisis. It
faces serious problems, particularly in relation to cost
pressures that must be addressed.
Let me come to the member's question. The cost drivers in
health care can be managed through changes in the way health care
is organized and delivered. That is why we are anxious to
support provincial efforts to innovate in areas like primary
health care reform, for example the current system of fee for
service as opposed to a different approach.
The province of Ontario has talked about getting 80% of its
physicians over the next four years on to different methods of
payment, apart from fee for service.
I am anxious to support innovation of that kind. I believe that
by using information technology, by measuring performance and by
looking at the way we can influence the rate of increase of costs
we can indeed keep our system sustainable. It will take
innovation. It will take change.
1035
The alliance party opposite would have us go in a different
direction. It would have us go toward the private parallel for
profit system of health care. The facts show that will not work.
I disagree fundamentally with the approach it favours. I do not
believe Canadians agree with that approach for a moment. I think
Canadians expect us to work very hard to keep the principles in
place to preserve the public nature of medicare but not to take
the American style approach. It will not work and it will not be
supported by Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
to say that we on this side of the House have had it with
watching this minister rise and ask the provinces to work with
him, when the minister and the government have unilaterally cut
transfers the provinces were entitled to expect in the health
care sector.
I have to say that a person has to be a real hypocrite to rise
in this House and call for co-operation when, last week, the
provinces tabled a report in which they unanimously—I hope the
minister will have the decency to rise in this House and
acknowledge it—asked the minister to reinstate the transfer
payments at their 1994-95 levels.
In 1968, the government established a social contract in 1968 in
which health care programs, in terms of transfer payments and
funding, were to be shared 50-50, that is, 50% by the federal
government and 50% by the provinces. However, the government did
not honour its part of the bargain, because it contributes 12%,
that is 12 cents on the dollar. The federal government's
contribution has shrunk to 12%, and the provinces have to assume
the rest.
The best thing this minister could do to establish his
credibility in the House is not give us fine speeches for the
leadership campaign, but exert pressure for the reinstatement of
the transfer payments at the 1994-95 level, as Brian Tobin,
Bernard Lord, Pauline Marois and all the health ministers have
asked him to do. He must stop his fine speeches and do
something. That is what we want from him.
Hon. Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the hon.
member only talks about money. But if this is what he wants to
do, I am perfectly comfortable with that.
I would like to quote Bernard Landry, Quebec's finance minister.
Some weeks ago, it was discovered that Mr. Landry, in his
capacity as Quebec's Minister of Finance, had left untouched, in
a Toronto bank, an amount of $850 million paid to Quebec by the
Government of Canada, for health.
When Mr. Landry was confronted with these facts, he said “Health
is not just a money issue, it is also about how our health care
system is run and structured. This is where the real answers
are”. That is what Mr. Landry said.
Therefore, I am really disappointed to hear the hon. member
focus exclusively on money.
This is clearly not just a money issue. Innovative methods and
changes in the delivery of services are also required.
I am prepared to work with my counterparts in that regard. I
have received and read the report. It is an excellent report. I
intend to discuss it in detail this afternoon during a
conference call with the provincial and territorial health
ministers. I hope the hon. member will recognize that this will
require us to work together, in a co-ordinated fashion, to
improve service delivery.
1040
[English]
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
minister for his commitment to social medicine in Canada.
Unfortunately I think he discredits himself when he acts like the
problems have not arisen from the serious cuts made by this
government.
What plans does he have for dealing with access in remote areas
such at the north and Yukon? The fact that people have to travel
thousands of miles to obtain treatment such as dialysis means
complete isolation from families. It is a serious problem for
isolated areas, which means most of the country.
Hon. Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right.
Monday morning last in Chesterville, Ontario, I had occasion to
speak to this subject in the presence of rural members of the
government caucus. I said at that time that after becoming
Minister of Health, travelling the country and looking at the
situation on the ground, I came to the conclusion the real threat
of two tier medicare in Canada was not so much between the rich
and the poor but between the urban and the rural.
Access to services in rural areas is a major issue. The
one-third of Canadians who live in rural Canada or in the more
remote regions are demographically older, have poorer health
status, are more subject to accidents and injuries, and yet have
less access to the whole range of services from ambulances to
emergency rooms to diagnostic equipment and family physicians,
let alone specialists.
The purpose of my appearance in Chesterville with members of the
rural caucus of the government was to receive their report on
recommendations for action the Government of Canada could take to
address some of these issues. I accepted all their
recommendations and I undertook to implement those that were
within my sphere of authority as federal minister.
At the same time I announced $130 million for concrete steps
which I will believe will help. First, there is a program
devoted to pilot projects for rural and community health with
money set aside specifically for innovative practices to be
funded in rural communities and looking at new ways to overcome
issues of access to services, whether it is training physicians
and nurses or paying them differently.
Second, investing in telemedicine would enable us to take
advantage of new technology to overcome the challenge of
distance. In the member's riding and in rural Canada generally I
believe telemedicine holds real promise for helping us overcome
some of the problems the member has identified.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, before
getting into the opposition motion from the Canadian Alliance
members, I wish to point out that today is the last day of work
of someone whose dedication in helping us with our parliamentary
duties has been extraordinary.
I am referring to Pierre Ménard, who has worked with the Bloc
Quebecois since 1993. I am sure that all members of the House
will want to thank him, because we all have colleagues who work
behind the scenes to help us to do a better job as
parliamentarians.
Pierre Ménard is someone with a solid legal background, who is
well versed in parliamentary procedure, who has a very keen
sense of humour, and who is charming. I want to tell him that
we will miss him very much.
I am sure that all my colleagues share these sentiments,
particularly the members for Chambly, for Beauharnois—Salaberry
and for Repentigny.
This tribute is not intended, however, to distract from the
extremely serious and urgent business of debating in this House
the federal government's responsibility in the crisis facing the
provinces.
I would like to begin with two cautions. The first is that we
believe that the provinces should be responsible for the health
care system.
We believe that the problems facing the provinces obviously have
a lot to do with the question of money and transfer payments.
1045
In no way does the Bloc Quebecois believe that we should cut
corners in examining the re-organization of the system.
Before going into detail, I wish to tell hon. members that I met
with some hospital administrators a few months ago, the ones for
CHUM and for Maisonneuve-Rosemount. I understood clearly that
the problem was not solely financial. It is mainly financial,
however, because if the provinces do not have all the resources
they should in order to be able to re-organize the health system,
the debate will remain extremely theoretical.
That said, I will offer one example of how the network can be
reorganized.
Does it make sense that there can be 30, 40 or 50 different
collective agreements within one health facility, and that the
person who puts down salt when there is a winter storm is not
the same one to shovel or clear the entrances to the hospital?
Does it make sense that there is such fragmentation in the
health community that, when one person could perform two or
three different jobs, at present this takes four, five or six
people? We are able to figure out that service delivery needs
to be re-organized along with the way the system operates.
The basic reality is that demographic and technological
pressures and drug costs will confront all provinces, whether
Quebec, Newfoundland, British Columbia or Saskatchewan, and
despite their greatly different political leanings, with the
same reality: that 4%, 5%, 6%, even 7% more will have to be
invested yearly in order to provide exactly the same services.
I would like to show hon. members the factors that contribute to
the pressure on the health system. Now we have not just
seniors, but increasing numbers of older seniors. In French we
call these the “fourth age” as opposed to the third.
It is not exception to run into people in our ridings who are
85, 90 or 95 and in relatively good health. These are the “old
elderly”, those aged 80 and over.
Since people are living longer, they want to continue living in
their own environment. This presents a challenge in terms of
home care. This presents a challenge in the way society will
organize itself to keep people in their natural surroundings,
and I will come back to this.
Quebec has a larger population of people aged 65 and older than
do other societies. I have some figures that will provide food
for thought for the member for Repentigny, who has a good crop
of grey hair himself.
In 2011, the number of people 65 years of age or older will have
increased by 60% since 1991. The increase in the number of
those 85 years of age or older is even more striking. Their
numbers will increase by 84%.
We might be tempted to think this is far off. We might think
2030 is beyond reach, but 2030 is just round the corner. In
2030, 25% of Quebecers will be 65 years of age or over.
1050
My colleague, the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, an eternal
optimist, has just whispered a very relevant point to me. In
2030, Quebec will be sovereign, but that fact in no way changes
the need to organize and consider how we can give our seniors
the best services possible.
When we compare things in Quebec with the way they are in
Germany, Canada, France and England, we realize that what sets
Quebec apart is the rate at which its population is aging.
Proportionally, Quebec's population is aging twice as rapidly as
the population of European countries. This means that the
percentage of people turning 65 or more will be demographically
greater here than in Europe. This will take place at an
accelerated rate that is unknown in countries such as France,
Germany and the Scandinavian countries.
I also want to mention another reality. The upward pressure on
the health budget is around 4% to 5% annually. This means that,
by the year 2002, if we want to provide exactly the same
services, if Quebec wants to provide exactly the same range of
services as it does in 2000-2001, the National Assembly will have
to increase its health budget by 4% to 5%.
If we look at this figure, and my colleagues are anxious to do
so, we realize that demographic growth accounts for 1.3%,
technological change for 1% and inflation for about 2% annually.
But there is a natural growth of 4% to 5% in the health sector.
Mr. Speaker, if I asked you, since you are mentally alert, to
tell me the rate of Quebec's collective growth, you would have
to say 2.5%. Therefore, if we do not restructure Quebec's health
system, we will find ourselves in a situation where the National
Assembly, the government of Quebecers, will have to allocate
more money for health than it can, based on the collective
wealth indicator. This is what is disturbing.
This is why the Premier of Quebec, one of the best ever to have
held the position, said, in response to Jean Charest in oral
question period, that it was not possible for Quebec's health
care budget to be open-ended. It is not possible. No government
in the world can operate that way and neither can Quebec.
I will return to what the Minister of Health erroneously said in
a moment of what I would call confusion and delirium. I will
come back to the money which is supposedly being held in trust
and which Quebec has not used.
But I wish to say that there are structural pressures on the
health system. We have the number: in 1999, last year, for
example, emergency rooms saw 50,000 more cases than in 1994-95.
Of these, 56% were people over the age of 75. This is where we
begin to understand the demographic pressure. When emergency
rooms are treating 50,000 more people and three-quarters of them
are aged 75 and older, we can see why demographic pressure has an
impact on health care.
I will give the example of radiation oncology. Oncology has to
do with cancer. Well, the demand for radiation oncology,
particularly for those aged 50 and up—baby boomers—is
increasing. New cases of cancer are increasing by 3% annually.
1055
The demand in cardiology is also increasing, particularly for
those aged 50 and older. Obviously, more seniors are undergoing
coronary bypass surgery. The number of heart surgeries is
increasing by 3.6% a year.
Mr. Speaker, you are a good-hearted person. You are going to be
very upset to hear that the number of angioplasties has increased
by 260% over the past ten years. This has an impact on the
health care system.
I was totally amazed to hear the Minister of Health, with his
dulcet leadership-seeking tones, praising the health ministers'
report.
A year ago, all of the ministers of health met together and came
to exactly the same conclusion. What was that conclusion? That
the federal government must return transfer payments to their
1995 level.
The ministers of health wanted to document what was going on in
the various health systems, so they tabled a report. I would
like all hon. members here in this House to understand that this
report is over the signatures of Bernard Lord, Pauline Marois,
the premier of British Columbia and Brian Tobin.
So the same conclusion is invariably reached, whether those
involved be Liberals, Progressive Conservatives, New Democrats
or Parti Quebecois: the federal government has literally robbed
the provinces of their due.
It has diverted funds. It has turned its back on its most basic
of responsibilities.
I would like to share part of the report, beginning on page 16.
I find the Minister of Health particularly hypocritical for
praising this report without giving us any of its content. I
feel obliged to share with hon. members the two main findings of
this report, which are most critical of the government.
On page 16 we find:
Total provincial/territorial health expenditures in Canada
increased from $11 billion in fiscal year 1997-98 to $55.6
billion in fiscal year 1999-2000, an average growth rate of seven
per cent per year.
So, it is not just the provinces that failed to assume their
responsibilities. It is not just the provinces that failed to
put money into the health care system. From 1977, the year
established program funding, EPF, was created, the cost
increased from $11 billion to $55 billion.
There is a limit, however, to what the provinces can do. There
is a lot of federal money and less provincial money.
At page 19 of this report, endorsed by all the provinces, by
Brian Tobin, Bernard Lord and Pauline Marois, the figures are
stunning. At page 19, the report by the health ministers reads:
Long before the CHST, years of federal transfer restrictions had
significantly reduced the federal government's proportional
share of provincial/territorial health care programming costs.
The federal share, which stood at 26.9 per cent in 1977/78, had
fallen to 16.3 percent in 1995/96 at the onset of the CHST.
1100
The report indicates there was a 40% decrease. It went on to
say:
The deep cuts accompanying the introduction of the CHST reduced
this share considerably, so that it stood at just 10.2 per cent
in 1998/99.
Over a period of 21 years, the percentage of health care funding
assumed by the federal government dropped 62.1%. Is it
acceptable that the federal government cut transfers to the
provinces, especially transfers for the health care system, with
impunity?
And then the Minister of Health rises in the House and says “In
spite of all the harm that I have done to the health ministers
and to the provincial health systems, I would like to act as if
none of that had happened and invite my provincial counterparts
to sit with me at the negotiating table, so that we can discuss
together the changes that should be made to health and social
services programs”.
The Bloc Quebecois believes that there is a prerequisite to the
minister convening a meeting with his counterparts, namely the
restoring of transfer payments for health.
If the government restored health transfer payments to their
1995 level, the provinces would receive $4.1 billion for health
alone. Quebec's share should be $1 billion, including $500
million for health.
I will tell the members who are listening and the people who are
watching the debates of the House of Commons what Quebec could
do with this additional $500 million for health.
That amount is equivalent to more than one quarter of the budget
for Montreal's hospitals.
The $500 million owed by the federal government to Quebec
represents nearly half the budget for the whole CLSC network in
the province.
The $500 million owed by this government to Quebec is almost the
equivalent of the budget allocated to home support.
The $500 million is four times the annual budget of
Sainte-Justine hospital for children. It is three times the
budget of the Royal Victoria Hospital, and it represents one
quarter of the cost of the prescription drug insurance plan.
I will conclude by saying that if this government is serious, if
it really wants to take its responsibilities and help the
provinces meet their obligation to maintain the health system
and preserve its integrity, it has no choice but to immediately
state its intention to restore transfer payments to their 1994-95
levels. Otherwise, it will mean—and voters will remember it at
the next election—that this government is a hypocrite and talks
from both sides of its mouth. It will mean that the government
does not want to help the provinces with their problems in the
area of health and social services. And Quebecers will remember
that.
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have listened to the Bloc
Quebecois health critic give an overview of health issues and try
to paint a negative picture of what the federal government is
doing. At the end of his speech, I heard him say that Quebec was
ill-served and underfunded.
I wish to remind the hon. member and all Canadians that Quebec
is getting its fair share of the 2000 budget.
1105
With 24% or 25% of Canada's population, Quebec is getting
approximately 28% of transfer payments. It is getting 28% of
transfer payments with 24% or 25% of the population. I do not
think that it can cry wolf and complain about being underfunded
compared to other regions in Canada and other provinces. The
record must be set straight.
Second, I hear the hon. member basing his arguments on a lack of
funding from the federal government. We have before us a motion
by the Canadian Alliance members, who talk about a system in
crisis, and would have us agree that Canada's health care system
is in crisis and vote in favour of their motion.
We have a report before us from the provinces. They are asking
for more money. That was already understood. We have known that
for some time. In this report, the provinces are saying that
Canada's system is not in crisis. There are pressures, problems,
challenges, but it is the provinces, not the federal government,
saying this. It is not the Liberal Party saying it. The
provinces are saying “The Canadian health care system is not in
crisis”. That is the actual conclusion of their report.
I would like to ask my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois what
comment he has to make on the opinion recently expressed by
Claude Castonguay, the father of health reform in the 1970s, and
a man with a reputation for wisdom.
All political parties and all consultations defer to Mr.
Castonguay. People like to get his point of view. On May 6 he
was quoted in Le Devoir as follows “In backing the race toward a
zero deficit, Quebec won the bet on taxation, but lost the one
on health. Quebec has lost its shirt on that one”.
Not only has it not managed to reform the system, it has even
lost its shirt. Mr. Castonguay also pointed out that there are
a number of reforms that need to be looked at. He pointed out
that, not only is the health system inefficient, but also there
is absolutely no way to gauge its productivity, its performance.
These are, to my mind, severe criticisms and I would ask the
hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve to consider that there is
work to be done in all of the provinces as far as service
organization and delivery are concerned. This was also said by
the Quebec Minister of Finance, Bernard Landry, a month and a
half ago, when it was reported that there were hundreds of
millions of dollars, $850 million at that time, available to
finance services for the people of Quebec.
Some Quebec patients are having to go the United States for
cancer treatment, and for other treatments, at the present time.
There are waiting lists, as everyone is well aware, and there
is also $850 million which could be used. The Quebec Minister
of Health was very surprised when this amount became known.
According to the Quebec Minister of Finance, “Our problem in
Quebec is not just money, but also the use, the administration
of that money”. The minister got that message clearly, because
she is commissioning an in depth study, and then of course there
is last year's study, which led to the Arpin report. The
Minister of Health and the Government of Quebec are therefore
well aware that service delivery and organization must be
re-examined, as Mr. Castonguay has also suggested. We must,
therefore, focus on a concerted effort to solve these problems.
I would like to know what our colleague thinks of Mr.
Castonguay's diagnosis.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, no one is denying in the House
that the various health care networks have to look at the
delivery of their services and that there is room for
reorganization.
I myself provided the example of the meeting I had with the head
of the emergency hospital centre. He explained that, in a
winter storm, the person cleaning the entranceways is not the
person doing the salting. These are examples of illogical
working arrangements we have to reconsider. Situations we see
now that are not logical, and not the best way to deliver the
service.
My colleague has to agree, however, that the provinces, in their
report said unanimously—and this includes Brian Tobin as well—that
the federal government did not assume its funding
responsibilities.
1110
For every dollar the provinces invest in health care, the
federal government, under its commitment, must set aside 50
cents. For every dollar spent, the federal government gives the
provinces only 12 cents. We think something has to be done
before we talk about co-operation.
Yes, the Minister of Health may want to meet his colleagues to
find a way to reorganize the network.
Yes, there are pressures that did not exist in the sixties. The
so-called fourth age, the group made up of very old people, was
not an issue. We did not have the same medical technologies. We
can certainly understand that. Back then, people did not wish to
remain in their community as long as they do now.
I hope the hon. member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, who is a
Quebecer like me, will agree with the assessment made by the
Quebec Minister of Health and Social Services, who is urging
this government to assume its responsibilities.
Few stakeholders in the health sector do not agree that the
federal government drastically reduced its financial support. I
personally talked to Mr. Castonguay myself and I believe he
acknowledged that the federal government had reduced its
support.
I invite the government to co-operate.
We will support its co-operative efforts. I also invite the
parliamentary secretary to recognize that the federal government
has reduced its support and that restoring transfer payments
must be a prerequisite to any dialogue with the provinces. That
is our conviction.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my colleague, the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, is very
enthusiastic. I am convinced that he still has a lot of things
to say.
As regards transfer payments, and I anticipate his answer, would
he agree with the suggestion that the federal government should
make such a transfer by allocating additional tax points?
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, our colleague no doubt wishes to
remind the House that the Canada social transfer, as it now
stands, takes two forms—cash payments and tax points.
I believe that he, like other stakeholders, has worked out that
it would be more advantageous to receive tax points, given
deflation and real value.
I know that our colleague, whose primary motivation has always
been to defend Quebec's interests, which he considers
non-negotiable, has put a great deal of effort in recent weeks
into the argument that Quebec should collect all its taxes.
That is a characteristic of sovereignty, or one step towards
sovereignty.
I have no hesitation in giving him my support and I thank him
for publicly pushing this idea, which is as generous as it is
enlightened.
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to participate
in this debate and to begin the input in this discussion on the
part of the New Democratic Party caucus.
It is fitting that we should end this parliamentary session with
a full blown debate on the question of health care. I want to
acknowledge the work of the Alliance in bringing this motion
forward. However, in so doing I also want to say “Welcome to
the debate” to members of the Canadian Alliance.
Mr. Ken Epp: What about the Liberals?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: An Alliance member just said
“What about the Liberals?” I too want to say to the Liberals
“Welcome to the debate”.
If there was any telling comment about the productiveness of
this past parliamentary session it has been the lack of a clear
discussion and debate on the future of our health care system. I
hold the Liberals responsible for this lack of accountability to
parliament and to the people of Canada.
I say to the Alliance members “Welcome to the debate”. This
is something we have been trying to push to the top of the
parliamentary agenda day in and day out for the past several
months, from the day the federal budget was tabled and we were
informed of just how serious this federal government took the
crisis in our health care system.
The government responded to the most critical situation facing
health care in the history of this country by tabling a budget
that gave two cents to health care for every dollar it spent on
tax cuts.
1115
At that moment there was no one else in this Chamber speaking
up, joining us in calling on the government to act appropriately
and responsibly in the face of the serious critical situation
facing health care.
We were alone, day in and day out, week after week, raising this
issue without any support, and we will continue to do so. We
have not only used every question period available to put this
question to the government, we have presented to the House two
motions using our two opposition days on this very question. We
have called for support from all sides of the House for an
increase in transfer payments. Did we get the support of the
Canadian Alliance? No, we did not. Of course we did not get the
support of the Liberals. That seems to be a given.
We presented a second motion in the face of the most critical
development in the history of medicare, that being the passage of
bill 11 in the Alberta legislature. We put a motion calling upon
the government to stand and either enforce the Canada Health Act,
or, if that was not possible, to amend the Canada Health Act to
prohibit private for profit hospitals.
Did the Canadian Alliance support us? No, it did not. It does
not need to be said again that the Liberal government did not
support us either.
No one supported us on those motions. We have stood alone, day
in and day out, trying to hold the government to account and
raising the number one issue facing Canadians today. Thank
goodness, at least to this point in time, in the dying days of
this parliamentary session, the Alliance has finally decided that
perhaps there should be a discussion here in parliament.
We are pleased to participate in this debate. I also want to
acknowledge though, because I do not want to issue total blanket
statements about lack of involvement by the Alliance on this
critical issue, the work of the health critic of the Canadian
Alliance, who has tried along with others to have this matter
addressed by the health committee.
Members will know that during the whole period that we were
dealing with the fall-out of the abysmal federal budget and the
rise of Ralph Klein's for profit private agenda the minister
avoided the debate here in parliament. He avoided the health
committee. In fact, he deliberately manipulated our agenda at
the health committee so we could not have the debate.
Let it be absolutely clear that at the point when it was the
most pressing time for all of us to come together to debate
health care and deal with the serious threats to the future of
medicare the Minister of Health took every measure he could to
dictate to the Liberal members on the health committee to prevent
us from having the debate.
Where is the debate taking place? Not in parliament. Not in
the health committee. Except for the one or two days that we
presented motions, there has been no ongoing, serious, long term
discussion about this issue. Where is that taking place? In the
other chamber. In the Senate.
This is the most pressing issue for Canadians. Surely to
goodness it ought to be before parliament. Why did the Minister
of Health, when he knew the concerns of all parties in the House,
when he knew how Canadians felt, come to the committee and try to
dictate what it should be studying? It certainly was not our
universal public health care system. It certainly was not.
When confronted about why he did that he said “The committee is
master of its own destiny. It can choose to do what it wants”.
If we can choose, how is it that he tried to deliberately
influence the agenda? How did he manage to get through to every
Liberal member of the committee so that we did not have that
opportunity?
This is the last day of the session. The health committee is
not discussing this issue. Parliament is hardly discussing this
issue, and the crisis continues.
Although this issue has not been thoroughly debated in
parliament, the motion today gives us an opportunity to discuss
the future of health care and put things into context.
The Alliance motion poses the challenges that we all have to
deal with. However, we question what is really behind this
motion, obviously. As we have noted in the debate today, time
and time again the Canadian Alliance has stood in the House or
outside the House to advocate private for profit health care.
I mentioned in my remarks earlier that every single leadership
candidate for the Canadian Alliance has in one way or another
advocated this kind of private encroachment on our health care
system. Just this past week Stockwell Day said that we should
trim the health care budget. The month before, Stockwell Day
said that we should stop the intrusive health transfers. The
member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca is clearly on record as
calling for a parallel private health care system. Today he is
quoted in the London Free Press as saying “Establishing
private clinics in hospitals in Canada is the key to aiding the
country's health care system”.
1120
It does not stop there. We know where Tom Long comes from. He
is either the protege or the actual force behind Mike Harris.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: The candidate from Bay Street.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Absolutely, the candidate from
Bay Street. What do candidates from Bay Street want? They want
to get their tentacles into the private health care market. They
know that this is a lucrative market. It is an $82 billion
golden egg and they want it. Tom Long wants it, not for the good
of the public sector, but for commercial interests. As Dalton
Camp said so well, when we are talking about Tom Long or Mike
Harris, we are talking about the beginning of a concerted effort
to change health care from a public interest to a commercial
interest.
Then of course there is the other leadership candidate, the
member for Calgary Southwest, who has said in this House, and I
have no doubt he has said it along the campaign trail, that we
should look at private sector health care. We can go right back
and trace the whole history of that individual and members of the
Canadian Alliance, and the Reform before it. All they ever
talked about was opening up the Canada Health Act to allow
private for profit health care. All they have talked about is
the need for private interests to get their hands on the health
care system, and my goodness, would it not be more efficient and
would it not be better?
I do not need to quote all of that again. I have put those
quotes on the record before. We have quotes from the member for
Calgary Southwest. We also have quotes from the former health
critic, and we have quotes from the present finance critic of the
official opposition in response to the last budget. When we were
leading the charge in terms of the weakness of the federal budget
vis-a-vis the health care crisis, the finance critic of the
Canadian Alliance said publicly on February 29, 2000 “Obviously
we are going to have to look beyond the money and start to
entertain some private sector solutions”.
There is no question that we need this debate in the House, but
we are very suspicious of the motives behind the motion. What
does this party mean when it talks about the system? What does
it mean when it says the system is not sustainable? Is this
party refuting everything that was ever studied in terms of our
health care system?
Looking at the most in-depth review of our health care system in
recent times, the National Forum on Health in its report “Canada
Health Action” clearly states “We believe the health care
system is fundamentally sound”. What is behind the Alliance
motion? Is it questioning the system, that the medicare model is
not sound? Is there a hidden agenda? Is this a clever way to
create an illusion of concern for health care, all the while
advancing the agenda of that party?
The health care critic said that he has solutions which he will
present. We are really looking forward to those solutions,
because all we have heard from those members to date are
basically three models, and they are all variations of the two
tier, Americanized style health care theme. One is that we go to
the welfare model. Those of us who have the money would pay for
our own and look after ourselves. For those who do not, we would
make sure they have health care. There would be one system for
the wealthy and one for the rest of us, and we can be sure who
would get the best quality health care services.
The second option they have presented, which is equally
suspicious in terms of any kind of integrity in its argument, is
the notion of a parallel private health care system, with the
argument that this would take pressure off our public system and,
lo and behold, we would have a much more effective and efficient
system which would be able to meet the needs of all Canadians in
the future because those who could afford to pay would go their
own way. They say this, notwithstanding the fact that every
study on the issue of private for profit institutions in health
care and any study done on private parallel health care models
shows absolutely and unequivocally that it is not more cost
effective, that it is not more efficient and that people get left
behind and fall between the cracks.
1125
The third suggestion we sometimes hear from the Alliance members
is something about a voucher system, that we should scrap the
transfers and give everybody money and they can go out and buy
whatever they need. This is just like what they have advocated
for education.
How would this build hospitals? How would it build community
clinics? How would it provide public health care? Who would pay
for it? Where would people go if they have the money and there
is no infrastructure? This is equally fallacious in the
arguments because all of it would end up being a two tier health
care system.
I ask members of the Alliance, what do they really mean when
they talk about the present system not being sustainable? Do
they mean medicare? Do they mean universal public health care?
Or, do they mean something else? Do they in fact question the
very root of Canada's health care system? Are they running
counter to the sentiments of Canadians and throwing those
longstanding values to the wind? Are they in fact advocating
something that Canadians absolutely abhor and would be repulsed
by if it were put on the public agenda? Are they trying to
advance an agenda in a clever way, pretending to create concern
for health care, when in fact they are not?
Getting back to the Liberals for a minute, it is too bad that we
are not here debating a constructive proposal, an initiative to
respond to this crisis. All the Minister of Health does is stand
in this House and say that there is no crisis. He uses the
report put out by the provincial and territorial health ministers
just last week to say there is no crisis.
He uses the report selectively, even though the report clearly
leaves the impression that, with the rising costs in our health
care system, we know that we could still manage the needs in our
health care system if the federal government provided the
leadership we have been calling for for so long.
Perhaps in pure fiscal terms one could say that there is no
crisis. We have argued that if the government put the money
where its mouth is we could sustain our health care system. To
say there is no crisis in health care is to totally deny the
feelings, the sentiments and the experiences of Canadians. The
Liberals cannot do that. They cannot stand in the House and say
there is no crisis.
How could they say that to someone who has spent time on a
gurney in a hallway waiting for medical attention? How could
they say that to someone who has had to be shipped to the United
States for cancer treatment because we do not have the
specialists in this country? How could they say that to the
families who are spending more and more out of their own pockets
to cover prescription drugs and home care? How could they say
that to the Canadians who are now paying, on average, $36 per
month for prescription drugs because the Liberal government has
refused to advance the value of a universal health care system?
It is a shame that we do not have this government advocating a
serious position in this parliamentary session. It is too bad
the Minister of Health did not have the courage that Monique
Begin had in 1984 when we had a similar crisis. What did she do?
She brought legislation to this House. She addressed the
issues. We had the debate and we moved forward.
I want to acknowledge the work of my colleague, the hon. member
Winnipeg—Transcona, who was the health critic for the NDP at the
time. He did an enormous amount of work to ensure that the
concerns of Canadians and the threats to medicare were brought to
the attention of the government. He worked actively to hold the
federal government to account and to push for the kind of changes
we finally saw in 1984 in the Canada Health Act. That should be
a lesson to the Liberals.
In his speech on March 29, 1983, the member said:
This is one of those rare opportunities one is presented with in
political life, and I hope there are more, when one has been able
to follow a political issue through what we might call a chapter
in history—in this case of medicare. I believe that chapter
began in 1977. What we are seeing now is an effort on the part
of the federal Government to shore up and correct some of the
consequences of the mistake it made in 1977—
It is too bad that government could not have been here today in
this parliamentary session with a similar piece of
legislation—with an initiative to deal with the crisis at hand.
What have we got instead? This spread of mythology and
propaganda about how transfer payments have not really been cut
and all the money has been put back. It is creating more and
more antagonism at the federal-provincial level, instead of
leaning toward a more co-operative approach.
What do the Liberals have to gain by continually denying the
fact that there is a shortfall? The Liberal government took the
biggest single bite out of medicare funding in the history of
this country in 1995. What do they have to gain by saying that
money has all been put back when it has not? That is where their
selective reading of reports comes in.
Let us look at the report which the health ministers delivered
last week entitled “Understanding Canada's Health Care Costs”.
The report clearly talks about the shortfall.
There is no question that there is a $4.2 billion shortfall. What
do we have to gain by not admitting it and getting on with the
job? It seems pretty straightforward if the government has the
money, but it is obviously waiting for an opportune moment,
probably an election. Why does it not do it now when the crisis
is at hand and we can get on with the job?
1130
Why did the government not stand up to bill 11? Why did it sit
back and say, time and time again, that it was going to study it
and take action when it had to? The bill has now been passed and
still the government has done nothing about it. It is now going
to wait to see how it will be implemented.
It is too late. It is over and finished. The Liberal
government and the health minister will go down in history as
being responsible for overseeing the death of medicare. I say to
them that they should wake up, start the debate and do something
today. Action is what we need, not more of the rhetoric that we
have heard time and time again from the health minister.
I do not need to tell members our position. We have advocated
time and time again, not just for money to be added to the health
care system, but that a twofold obligation and strategy on the
part of government is required. The government needs to at least
keep its word in terms of restoring transfer payments and
bringing some stability to the federal-provincial table to allow
provinces to deal with the critical situation they are facing
right now.
However, we need more. We need leadership from the government
to actually reform, renew and strengthen our medicare model. We
have presented idea after idea on how to achieve that. We have
talked about how one has to look at health care on a continuum
and ensure that coverage is there for people who are in the
hospital or outside of it. We have talked about the need to
address the root causes of ill health and trying to get the
government to deal with the fact that poor health comes from
poverty, and on that, we note the recent statistics and this
government's record. Ill health also comes from people living in
deplorable housing situations or on the streets. It comes from a
lack of clean water, which we see on many of our reserves. It
comes from many things and the government sits back and lets it
happen.
We have called on the government to do some very specific things
when it comes to renewing our medicare model. We believe that
the medicare model is sustainable. We believe that with
financial commitment and political leadership we can sustain our
health care. If we look at all the studies, we know that when we
invest in community care and preventative measures, and when we
ensure that home care, pharmacare, community care and maybe even
dental care are provided, we can sustain the system. Would this
not mean people would be less of a drain on our health care
system in the long term?
Our system is one of the most cost effective and efficient in
the world. Let us keep it that way. I agree with the Alliance,
we do have a crisis. I agree that we do have serious problems
but it is not the public sector aspect of our health care system.
It is because 30% of our health care system is now in private
hands. It is because drug costs have gone through the roof. It
is because the government and Alliance members, with their
complicity, have not stood up to the multinational drug companies
that have a hold over our health care system.
There are many things we can do and much that can be done. I
hope that in presenting this motion the Alliance is genuine and
sincere, and that it will state today that it is committed to the
medicare model, that it will work to make it sustainable, that it
believes in a universally accessible public health care system,
and that it will join with us in championing this cause and
ensuring that health care, the number one priority of Canadians,
is addressed and addressed soon.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my
colleague's speech. I have always respected this colleague
because she is obviously very passionate about health care and
very focused on what needs to be done. However, I was
disappointed in her speech. For some reason, she chose to spend
the most of it in a diatribe, a rant against the Alliance Party,
which is the only party that has brought forward the opportunity
to talk about real, constructive proposals for health care.
I want to tell the hon. member that the Alliance members get
sick and their families get sick. They want health care and need
health care. They care about medical services as passionately
and as deeply as any member of any other party. I urge the NDP
and the hon. member to focus their remarks and their fire on the
government. The government is the only one that can actually do
something about this issue other than advise, which is what we
have tried to do.
1135
I would suggest that to use half of a 20-minute speech to tear
down an opposition party that is simply working honestly and
openly with all parties to try to fix a broken system, is a
misuse of time, which is pretty unwise and disappointing.
In addition to the member putting forward conspiracy theories, I
noticed that she did make two suggestions: first, that the
government should put more money into health care; and second,
that the government should show leadership in reforming and
strengthening it. That is exactly what this motion is about. It
is about reforming and strengthening the health care system to
ensure that all Canadians have health care when they need it
regardless of their ability to pay.
I would ask the member to focus on the solutions that we are
trying to reach so that we can then put pressure on the
government to actually do something. I also would ask the member
to spend a couple of minutes on solutions, for which can all get
behind and support and which would really help Canadians, and not
just more political rhetoric.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to
answer the question. The first thing I want to say is that this
is not the first opportunity we have had to debate these issues.
The NDP has presented two previous motions and we have had two
full days of debate. We have presented options and solutions but
we have not had the support of the Canadian Alliance. One option
was as fundamental as trying to get a change to the Canada Health
Act to stop private for profit hospitals. If that is not a
concrete solution what is, given the crisis we are facing and the
threat by American multinational corporations to get their
tentacles into our health care system?
We have tried very hard over the last number of months to engage
everyone in the House in this discussion. I have not just
focused on the Alliance. I have focused just as much on the
Liberal government. I say, a pox on both your houses. I worry
when two parties start to sound exactly the same. In fact they
are both prepared to passively allow for the privatization of our
health care system and oversee a climate of negligence. That is
the fundamental issue here. We have presented many solutions.
If I was given another hour I could go into line and verse over
the health care proposals offered by the New Democratic Party. I
could go into detail about how we believe home and community care
should be an integral part of our national health care system. I
could talk about our plan for introducing a national pharmacare
plan in conjunction with measures to contain drug costs. I could
go into our proposals for developing national health goals to
guide co-ordinated action in collaboration.
I could go into our proposals for creating new ways to integrate
federal policy in support of national health goals. I could talk
about our proposal for establishing a ministry of state for
public health within Health Canada. I could talk about our
proposal for a forum to work with all senior civil servants
providing an integrated, co-ordinated approach to health policy.
I could talk about our proposal for requiring formal health
impact assessments of all related federal policy. I could talk
about our need to democratize the development of health policy at
the national level. I could talk about our recommendation for
appointing a national public health commission.
I could talk about our recommendations for stable funding for
public education, policy research and advocacy for health
consumer groups. I could talk about the need for a broad public
dialogue on the ethical challenges facing all of us in the face
of these burgeoning technological changes.
I could talk about the specific suggestions we have for dealing
with the absolute deplorable conditions among the remote and
northern communities. I could talk about the situation facing
aboriginal communities and what needs to be done. I could go for
hours giving members very specific details—
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Why didn't you?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: The member asks why I did not. I
think I did a pretty good job outlining our proposals in my
20-minute speech.
However, all members of the Alliance have to understand that
what is at stake here, first and foremost, is our ability to
stand up and preserve medicare.
What I have not heard, and what I am still waiting to hear from
that party, is: Does it or does not support the medicare model?
Does it support universally accessible, publicly administered
health care? Do not give me the line that we do not have it now.
We know we do not have totally universal health care system. We
know we have two tier health care. We know we have people going
to the States for coverage.
The question is: Where does reform stand on where we go in the
future? Do we try to deal with those problems? Do we try to
convince the federal government to not only put in more money but
to show leadership around innovative ways to meet the needs of
Canadians, or do we cave in, as the Alliance appears to be doing,
to the forces of multinational corporations and the global
corporate agenda, and actually say “the market is open, come in
and get your share and let whoever goes by the wayside, let it
be?”
1140
What it really comes down to is whether or not we want that kind
of system. This is the turning point in the history of the
country.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic member for
Winnipeg North Centre speaks with passion about health care.
I would point out a certain contradiction in what she is saying.
Today, the House has before it a motion moved by the official
opposition, the Canadian Alliance.
This motion is based on the assumption that the health care
system is in a critical state, in crisis, and that, as a result,
it needs to be overhauled.
The member for Winnipeg North Centre waxes eloquent against the
Canadian Alliance stand on health care but is getting ready to
vote with the Canadian Alliance, against the government, on this
motion. I am trying to follow her logic.
Mr. Speaker, you, who follow our debates closely, heard her as
well as I did. She spent most of her time shooting down in
flames the positions of the Canadian Alliance and then, at the
end, suggested that she was going to support the motion because
the opposition parties must stand together. Is she serious? Is
not her greatest threat the Canadian Alliance and its proposals?
She is well aware that the government has done everything
necessary to maintain the basic characteristics of our health
care system. It is getting ready to increase the level of
funding. It is working with the provinces to improve the system.
There will be more discussions this afternoon between ministers.
She knows all that.
We are being told to listen to the provinces. That is another
contradiction because what are the provinces saying?
[English]
Canada's publicly funded health care system is not in crisis.
Canadians continue to be well served by their health care system,
but it is under serious challenges due to rising demand, et
cetera. We know that. This is what the provinces have said.
Among the provinces, there are three governments led by the New
Democratic Party.
We are paying attention and listening to what the provinces are
saying. The system is not in crisis but we have to prepare new
responses for the new challenges and new pressures we are feeling
now.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member
did not catch all my remarks because I was speaking so quickly,
but I want to be very clear about a couple of things.
First, we take umbrage with this government's suggestion that
the system is not in crisis. The member can argue the
statistics. Yes, I do have the report he quoted from and I do
not disagree with him in terms of that selective quote. However,
as I have just said, the people who use the system, the people
who want to know health care is there when they need it, are not
at ease with what is happening. They are worried, anxious and
fearful. When that kind of level of fear and anxiety occurs, we
have a crisis. Whether we can back it up in terms of statistical
numbers or not, it is a human fact and it is a problem we have to
address.
Second, the Liberal parliamentary secretary tries to suggest
that the whole system is sustainable. We say that the medicare
model is sustainable, and we have shown documents that back that
up. The real question is, which was also stated in the provincial
document the minister quoted from, that the rising need for
additional health services is not sustainable without significant
new federal funding.
Time and time again we have said that there is a crisis in the
health care system because of failed federal leadership and a
climate of negligence. We can address the problems and ensure
that medicare is sustainable, but it takes the federal government
to put its money where its mouth is and to show federal
leadership and political courage.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, it has been an interesting debate. At the outset, I do
want to thank the member and the party who introduced this
motion. I think it is a motion worthy of debate and it is a
motion that most of us on this side of the House can and will
support.
Let us take a look at the wording in the motion. I know the
government has trouble with, but the motion reads:
1145
The government has a problem with the word crisis, but there is
no question that the system is in crisis.
I compare it to a home or a building burning down. At some
point the fire can be put out and the structure saved. It is the
same with our health care system. It is in a crisis and the
truth is that on the government's watch it has done nothing to
save it. It has not come up with any innovative ideas. Basically
the government has been running on empty for seven years on this
file. The truth is that it is responsible for the state of
anxiety that we are seeing in our health care system from coast
to coast.
We debated in the House bill 11 in Alberta. We are hoping the
government will take a position on it one way or the other. The
criticism we are throwing back at the government in relation to
bill 11 is that it is forcing the provinces to perform radical
surgery on their health care system. The reason for this is that
they have been in an animated state of suspension since 1993.
The provinces have no idea where we are going on the health care
file.
Most premiers probably believed that the Liberal red book
promises in 1993 or in 1997 would count for something. The
Liberals promised to look after our cherished health care system,
and obviously they have not. It is just one more red book
promise they have not honoured.
Getting back to bill 11 in Alberta, it is simply a case of
provinces doing what they have to do to salvage their health care
system, to save their health care system.
You may know, Mr. Speaker, a bit about the policies and
platforms of the NDP. From time to time I think you have made
the statement that your party is sort of the father of health
care. We could talk about Diefenbaker and the work that our
party and the Liberal Party did. I think we all want to take
credit for it, but the fact is that the NDP had a lot to do with
the creation of health care in Canada. It is a basic reality and
we all acknowledge it.
We want to preserve a health care system based on the five
principles we often mention in this place: universality,
accessibility, comprehensiveness, portability and public
administration. We want to preserve it, as does your party, Mr.
Speaker. Horror of all horrors, yesterday in Saskatchewan, your
home province, Premier Roy Romanow had to look this thing
straight in the eye and say they had a problem and had to do
something about it.
I will quote from the National Post. I know it is a
newspaper that you and I do not have much love for from time to
time, Mr. Speaker, but here is the story headlined “Health care
under review in Saskatchewan”:
Commissioner appointed.
Premier looks to remodel system, keep the dream alive.
Saskatchewan, which created medicare nearly 40 years ago, is
launching a far-reaching review of health care that will include
an examination of what services should be publicly funded.
1150
Most NDP members would have hid under their desks if they heard
that a few years ago, and I would not have blamed them. The
truth is that the federal government is forcing the provinces to
do exactly what the Premier of Saskatchewan would have to do:
take a hard look at their expenses, where they are going and
whether they can sustain the system. My belief is that they
cannot.
Following the 1993 election this government extracted $17
billion out of the system. If it is allowed to stay in office
until the year of 2001, it will have taken $30 billion out of the
system. No province, NDP, Liberal or Conservative, could live
under that type of severe cutback to the funding of its health
care system.
We must remember that the provinces are the primary health care
givers. They depend on the federal government to help cost share
health care. When it was introduced many years ago it was a
50:50 formula in which the federal government paid 50 cents on
the dollar to help the provinces provide primary health care. The
Liberal government has reduced that to an average of about 20
cents on the dollar. In some provinces it is as low as 15 cents
on the dollar in terms of the federal share of health care
spending. It is not much wonder the system is in trouble.
Let us consider what is happening in New Brunswick in terms of
the leadership of this government and what it has done in the
last number of years. I will quote from June 10 edition of the
Telegraph Journal. The health care minister of the
province of New Brunswick, Dr. Dennis Furlong, has been in the
health care field as a professional, as a doctor, for at least 25
years.
An hon. member: He is a good Newfoundlander.
Mr. Greg Thompson: I am told he is a good Newfoundlander.
That tells us something about the quality of care we will get in
New Brunswick from this gentleman. We are quite impressed with
his credentials. The story in the June 10 edition of the
Telegraph Journal was headlined “Health-care cost spiral
can't go on” and started out by saying:
Health Minister Dennis Furlong expects the province's annual
health-care bill to top $2 billion in five years.
The article indicated that was in the best case scenario because
presently New Brunswick spends about $1.5 billion, which will
rise to $2 billion in the best case scenario, and that the
province would be forced to spend almost 50% on heath care for
its citizens. Referring to the federal government, the article
continued:
We're at a stage now where we have to tell them that we can't go
on. If it continues to go on it's them that are putting pressure
on the Canada Health Act, not the provinces.
I think all of us in the House, at least those of us on this
side, are in agreement with that issue. The federal government
is putting the provinces into a situation where they cannot
sustain their system. According to the article, Dr. Furlong went
on to point out what was going on in Ontario in defence of his
case:
Dr. Furlong said Ontario is estimating that 60 per cent of its
provincial budget will be taken up by health care spending by the
year 2010 unless something changes.
When we have the premiers doing what is being done in
Saskatchewan, as an example, it tells us something is wrong. It
tells us that these people across the aisle in the Liberal
government have mismanaged that file despite the promises they
made back in 1993 and 1997 via the red book. That was a
convenient sort of political thing to do, was it not?
Let us go on. In terms of criticism of the government Tom Kent,
who is sort of the social architect of the Liberal Party and I
believe a resident of Kingston, Ontario, and despite the fact
that he is a Liberal, most of us in the House would agree has a
social conscience.
When people like Tom Kent speak most of us listen because he does
have a statesmanlike stature about him on the issue of health
care. He said that federal action was required. Brian Stewart
on The National interviewed Tom Kent last evening on the
news. He said that federal action was required, because he is
smart enough to know what the present Prime Minister does not
understand, that the Liberals are in the driver's seat and that
they have to show leadership on this issue. They have not done
so for seven consecutive years.
1155
What amazes me is that they are suddenly realizing that we had
better start talking to the 10 provinces, our partners back home.
We have to get them into the same room and come up with a
solution. It has taken them seven years to realize that there
has to be some kind of meaningful dialogue between the provinces
and the federal government.
The truth is that they poisoned the atmosphere back in the 1993
era when they started to make draconian cuts to health care after
having promised that they would not do it in the 1993 election
campaign.
An hon. member: And then they bragged about balancing the
budget.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Exactly, and we know how they did it.
It was on the backs of ordinary Canadians and on the backs of the
health care system in our respective provinces. Then they have
the audacity to stand in the House and say that they balanced the
books. It is fine that they balanced the books, but at what
expense? It was at the expense of putting our health care system
in a crisis situation from which we may not be able to recover if
these people stay in office.
Obvioulsy there is a solution to the problem: replace them when
the next election comes around. That is what we are hoping we
can do because we need federal leadership in this regrd. That is
exactly what Tom Kent was talking about last evening and
continually spoke about over the last five or six years after
witnessing the horrible things his party did to the health care
system. I am saying good for Tom Kent. He should keep speaking
up because those are the types of people we want to hear from on
this issue.
The interesting point about the cutbacks in the 1993 to 1997 era
and the damage they did to the health care system is that the
provinces had nothing to say about it. The government just
simply went ahead and did it. The provinces suddenly woke up to
find that the money was not there and asked how it could be done.
In fact, every member of the Liberal caucus nodded in silent
agreement as the government did it. They stood on their hind
legs in this place and supported those draconian cutbacks to our
health care system. That is deplorable. As Liberals, I do not
know how they could have sat there and allowed it to happen.
The hon. member for St. John's West certainly knows the Premier
of Newfoundland who campaigned hard via another candidate to try
to keep that member out of the House of Commons but did not
succeed. The Premier of Newfoundland, for goodness' sake, stood
in this place in 1995 and voted for cutbacks to the health care
system. Now he is regretting it. One of the strongest critics
of the federal government in terms of what it has done to health
care is the Premier of Newfoundland. He goes by the name of
Brian Tobin, just for the record.
The Liberals bragged last year when the budget came down about
putting $11.5 billion in the health care budget. In writing
about last year's budget in the February 3 edition of The
Globe and Mail Jeffrey Simpson stated:
Anyone who believed the $11.5 billion pledged in the last budget
would suffice did not understand the economics of health. That
increase amounted to a 4% yearly increase in public sector health
care spending. Four per cent is about the medical inflation
rate, so the additional spending would only prevent the system
from deteriorating further.
1200
We have gone a year with $11.5 billion which would basically
keep up with inflation, if it did that; in some jurisdictions it
did not even do that. This year the government put in $2.5
billion to keep the system going for four years. It was $2.5
billion over four years or take it all up front. For example, if
the province of New Brunswick took it up front, it would keep its
system going three days. It is the same in Newfoundland.
That is not leadership. That is attempting to salvage political
careers. That is exactly what the Prime Minister is famous for
doing. The Liberals did the same thing in 1997 on the eve of the
federal election. When the Liberals were in trouble right up to
their eyebrows, they came up with a deathbed reprieve. They
suddenly threw a bunch of money into health care to make up a
fraction of what they had taken out of it, only a fraction.
That is exactly what is wrong with the system. It is ad hoc,
make it up as they go along, fly by the seat of their pants. Our
leader Joe Clark is suggesting that we have a sixth principle in
addition to the ones I mentioned. That principle would be
predictable sustainable funding.
No business can run that way. A business cannot be run by
saying, “We do not have a plan. We are just going to run and
hope that it works”. Usually when someone runs a business like
that, at the end of a year or two it is bankrupt.
That is what the Liberals have done with health care. They have
bankrupted it because of no direction, no ideas and no plan. They
have done it now for seven solid years. In the meantime, they
have poisoned the atmosphere with the provinces. The Prime
Minister cannot get into the same room with the first ministers
or the health ministers to solve the problem. Why? They do not
trust him. Would anyone trust him? It is like someone who
sneaks into a house in the middle of the night and steals the
furniture. That is what he has done with health care.
I want to say a couple of things about the health minister. On a
personal basis I like him. He is a good man. There is no
question about that. He is very articulate, well coifed, well
dressed, maybe not rock solid on this file but he is a good
person nonetheless. I am not attacking him on a personal basis.
What he reminds me of is the little man on the wedding cake. He
is properly dressed, well attired, like the perfect little
gentleman on the wedding cake. That is exactly how the Prime
Minister treats him. But the icing is melting. The Prime
Minister does not give his minister one ounce of support. How he
could stand up in this House day in and day out and prop up a
Prime Minister that pulls the legs out from under him on a
routine basis, I cannot fathom. I cannot understand that.
If I were the Minister of Health, I would resign. I would not
allow the system to deteriorate or allow someone to take a
wrecking ball to the system under my watch. If the Prime
Minister wanted to do it, he could go ahead but it would not be
on my shoulders. If I were the health minister, that is exactly
what I would say to the Prime Minister. I would walk up to him
with my resignation in my hand and tell him to show some
leadership on this issue and do something about it.
Of all the issues in this country, this is the number one issue
on the minds of Canadians. As the minister mentioned this
morning, and I agree with him, we do not want to go down the road
of Americanization of the Canadian health care system.
There is an article which states that the American people are
one sickness away from bankruptcy. I live right next to the
American border. I have worked in the United States. I have
lived there and some of my family members have been bankrupted by
the American system.
That is one point on which we agree.
1205
What he has to do is show some leadership to avoid us moving in
that direction because on his watch we are going to do it. The
health care system is in a crisis. We support the motion. We
want the government to fix the health care system.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the member used a lot of general terms, such as provide
leadership.
The member will know that when the government was elected in
1993 one of its platforms was the creation of the national forum
on health. During the national forum on health study the best
health care experts in the country worked for two years
consulting with Canadians. One of the findings in the report
issued at the end of 1996 was that money was not the problem.
There was enough money in the system. It was how wisely were we
spending it.
The member also said that we should provide leadership and work
with the provinces. That is exactly what the Minister of Health
has done. There have been consultations already with the
provinces. There is a meeting tomorrow. In September the first
ministers will be meeting to finalize the discussions and
negotiations on health care between the federal and provincial
governments.
What is the Conservative approach? It is not a matter of money,
even though our funding has increased to $30 billion this year
compared to $28 billion back in 1993. What does the member's
party propose? In one of the reports on poverty the member's
party said to increase the transfers under CHST but only if the
provinces matched that money. In other words, let us only give
it to those provinces who can afford to match some federal
funding.
Obviously it is just another case of a two tier system:
improvements for provinces that have money and no improvements
for those who do not. How does the member square his policy with
the need for leadership?
Mr. Greg Thompson: Madam Speaker, there is nothing like a
lynching in the morning to focus the mind. That is exactly what
is happening on the health care issue. The government knows full
well that it has mishandled it for seven years. The lynching of
course is the election.
The Liberals are smart enough to know that unless they do
something about it, they are in big trouble. Support for the
Liberals is about a mile wide and an inch deep. The witness to
this is sitting next to me, the member for St. John's West. The
Liberals went into the byelection 25 percentage points ahead and
that member beat them. Why? Because a mile wide and an inch
deep is what their support amounts to.
Money alone cannot fix the system. We are smart enough to know
that. Our leader has stated that. We need innovative ideas and
leadership which Joe Clark is prepared to do. He did that in the
House of Commons in 1979 when he had a four year plan to lead the
country out of debt and people rejected it. It was a bold
initiative which he took at great political risk. He is prepared
to do the same thing on the health care file.
One point we agree on is money alone will not fix it, but the
government is bereft of ideas. The slogan in the next election
should be, no ideas, no votes. It is as simple as that. If the
Liberals do have an idea, they should be committed to keeping it.
The electorate should hold the Liberals' feet to the fire.
We are getting more into economics than health care, but the
Liberals railed against the GST in 1993. How many Liberals said,
“If we get elected we are going to eliminate it”. Today the
GST brings in $22 billion in revenue. If that is added to the
$30 billion they have taken out of health care at the end of
their tenure, that is $52 billion. I could balance the books
with that set of numbers.
It is all phoney baloney. They have nothing to brag about on
this file. They are going to bankrupt the system and health care
truthfully is in a crisis.
1210
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, my colleague from the Conservative Party made
reference to Saskatchewan Premier Romanow and the great job the
NDP are attempting to do in the face of the massive cuts by the
Liberals in terms of health transfers. As a matter of fact he
made reference to the historic fact that Saskatchewan led the way
by initiating medicare and starting a medicare plan for all of
its citizens a full six years before NDP and CCF members of
parliament persuaded the federal government to adopt such a
program for all citizens.
Saskatchewan again is taking the lead in defining a new vision
of medicare to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Premier
Romanow for a couple of years now has been pushing for a national
review of the medicare system to improve it. He now plans to
concentrate on what is important in Saskatchewan because the
federal government refuses to look at this issue in a
comprehensive way.
This morning the premier announced the commission on medicare.
The commission will be headed by health consultant Ken Fyke and
will identify challenges facing medicare, outline potential
solutions and engage the public and health care providers in a
discussion of new ideas. The premier said that Saskatchewan
pioneered publicly funded, publicly administered health care in
Canada and today Saskatchewan once again leads the way in finding
solutions to strengthen medicare and protect its core values into
the future.
New Democrats believe very strongly that a family's health
should never have to depend upon a family's wealth. This is the
underpinning of our support for medicare.
My Conservative colleague who just gave his remarks on this
issue was a member of the Mulroney government which initiated a
plan of consecutive three year cuts to the health transfers to
the provinces. The plan of the Mulroney Conservative
administration, which was roundly rejected by Canadians in the
1993 federal election, would have made Canadians not just money
deprived in terms of health care by this year, but it would have
eliminated any transfers to the provinces for health care by the
year 2000.
Could the member from the Conservative Party share with the
House whether he supported that initiative of the Conservatives?
His leader Joe Clark supports bill 11 in Alberta to privatize
health care. Does he support his leader on that issue? Does he
agree with the byelection results in Edmonton, which was run on
the issue of bill 11 where the NDP candidate won with 60% of the
vote in the Conservative province of Alberta? I look forward to
his answers.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Madam Speaker, some if not all of what
the member had to say is inaccurate.
In terms of the transfers from the federal government, when we
were in power from 1988 to 1993, as an example we planned to cut
back on the rate of increase. For example, we would project a 5%
increase in transfers to the provinces which might go to 4%. The
NDP took that as a cutback. NDP members are very selective in
their use of figures. This is one case where I agree with the
member for Calgary—Nose Hill. Today, the point is that the feet
of the government in power should be held to the fire.
In terms of Joe Clark's position, that is totally inaccurate.
Joe Clark supports the five principles of health care. He
suggested a sixth one, which no other leader has been brave
enough to do. We are convinced that to solve this crisis we have
to have open and honest dialogue and that also means open and
honest dialogue for the NDP premier.
I talked about Roy Romanow and I tried to be generous, but with
those kinds of remarks from the NDP member, it is pretty hard to
be generous. The truth is that Roy Romanow will have to do the
horror of all horrors. He will have to define what will be paid
for by the province. I mentioned this in a speech in the House
about a month ago, long before the NDP knew what Roy Romanow
would do.
1215
The truth is that he will shorten the list of services that will
be provided by the province of Saskatchewan. The truth is that
he is being forced to do it by the federal government. It is no
different from any other premier. It is no different from Ralph
Klein in terms of bill 11.
Basically Ralph Klein said that he did not want to do it but was
being forced to do it. I am sure Roy Romanow does not want to do
what he will do, but he is forced to do it. On that we could
agree, but I am disappointed in the tone and the comments made by
the NDP member.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, it is a privilege to enter the debate. There are two
parts of it that I find disconcerting. Probably the most
significant part is that the government of the day does not seem
to accept the idea that health care is in crisis.
I took the liberty to get an official definition of the word
crisis. There are two parts to the definition which are very
significant. A crisis is defined as a decisive moment or a time
of danger or great difficulty.
At this point in time the health care system is in danger. Is
it the system that is in danger or is it the people who are in
danger? I would suggest that it is the people of Canada who are
in danger because the health care system is failing them.
I want to approach the definition of crisis from the point of
view of the five principles of the health care system as laid out
in the Canada Health Act. Those principles are accessibility,
portability, universality, comprehensiveness and public
administration. I want to look at each of them in turn.
The great danger is that what we are told we have and what we
believe we have in terms of health care coverage is not what in
fact we have. It is a bit like buying an insurance policy on a
vehicle, thinking that there is appropriate and sufficient
coverage for public liability, property damage and things of that
sort, and then discovering when an accident occurs that the
policy does not cover such things. What we thought we had we do
not have. That is very dangerous.
We thought we had accessibility. The Minister of Health
suggests that the health care system is not in crisis, that we
have the five principles and that is exactly what it is all
about. That is not the case. It is a bit like having a child
showing the symptoms of an illness and the parent denying the
symptoms by simply saying that the child is not sick. If the
child is really sick the child's life is in danger. If we do not
deal with it at the time, by the time we are prepared to do so it
may be too late.
The time is now to recognize that we have a problem. It is up
to the minister and the government to recognize that we have a
problem. We are in a crisis situation. The people of Canada are
in danger. If we ask the people of Canada whether they think
Canadian health care is where it ought to be, they will tell us
that it is not.
Does it mean the health care that is delivered is not delivered
well? No. There are very good practitioners in Canada. I
recently received some treatment from some specialists and they
were extremely competent. The difficulty is to get it. It is not
universally accessible. Accessibility should be available when
it is needed, not some time in the future. That is a very
important issue.
I will give the example of a gentleman who went to his family
doctor and said that he had severe abdominal pain. The doctor
looked at him and said that he would have to be referred to a
specialist, which is what he did. When he went to see the
specialist he could hardly make it up the stairs. There was no
elevator. He was doubled over in pain by the time he got there,
and without even looking at him the receptionist asked him if he
were a patient of the doctor. He said no. In that case, he was
told, he would have to wait at least nine months before the
doctor could see him.
This man thought he had a health care system and he thought he
would get service. He reminded the receptionist that he had a
referral from his general practitioner, and she told him that he
could not see the doctor for at least nine months.
He left that doctor's office and 10 days later he was in the
emergency ward of a hospital and within two days was dead.
1220
Since 1997 there has been a 30% increase in the people waiting
for care. In 1998 a total of 212,990 Canadians were waiting for
care. In 1993 the average waiting time was 9.3 weeks. In 1998,
five years later, the average wait was 13.3 weeks. That is an
increase of 43% in a matter of five years. People wait for up to
nine months to see a specialist, such as in the case I just
mentioned. There are huge shortages in technologies like the
MRI.
I refer to another incident that happened recently. We have two
health care delivery systems in Kelowna, the general hospital and
the cancer centre. There is an MRI machine at each of those
locations. One of the machines broke down. Were the patients
allowed to go to the other institution for treatment? No. They
did not have the people to run the MRI in one case and the others
were idle. Could they bring them over? No. It was a
jurisdictional dispute. This is serious business.
Some will say that is not the health minister's concern. It is
not directly his concern, but indirectly it is because there is
an attitude out there that somehow the system is not geared to
the patient but is geared to some other standard that has nothing
to do with the patient. That is significant.
The second principle under the Canada Health Act is portability.
How portable is it? I want to review a couple of facts. Any
Canadian has the right to be treated for an injury that happens
anywhere in Canada. The concept or the principle is that we
should have treatment anywhere in Canada. People living in
Newfoundland, British Columbia or the Northwest Territories
should have access to health care anywhere in Canada. It should
not matter where their health cards were issued.
Unless something has happened in the last couple of hours,
Quebec patients outside that province are required to pay upfront
because their government did not sign the portability agreement
and cannot be counted on to pay. That is very serious issue. I
looked around a bit to see if this were really the case, and it
is. If Quebec chooses it will pay claims at the rates set in
Quebec regardless of the cost of the service provided elsewhere.
Many other people who go out of the province have difficulties
getting medical treatment.
I happened to come across a family of a child that came from
Quebec who had contracted some kind of illness in Manitoba. The
child was taken to the medical clinic and the family was asked to
pay upfront. The individuals said they were on a trip across
Canada, for which they had saved over the last 10 years. They
really wanted to travel across Canada. If they had to pay
upfront they would have to spend their money on the health bill
and would be unable to complete their journey. That was a
serious infringement on what they thought they had. They thought
they had portability but they did not. It is very serious when
that sort of thing happens.
The third principle is universality, which really means that all
kinds of issues are covered. What about access in a rural
community?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I apologize for
interrupting the hon. member, but is he sharing his time with
another colleague?
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Yes, I will be sharing my time. I
will deal with the other two principles. On the comprehensive
nature of our public health care system, a lot of provinces have
had to delist services. If we are to have a comprehensive system
virtually all services originally listed should be retained. It
should not be arbitrarily decreased.
What about public administration? The largest expenditure in
the health care system is the cost of administration of
hospitals. In British Columbia it is about 58% of health care
costs and the budgeting is done on the basis of global funds.
A global budget provision splits the administrators and the
government into two negotiating teams. The administrators say
that they need more money than they had last year and the
government says they have to get by with less. The patient is
lost in this battle between the negotiating teams. It is not in
the interest of the patient. That has to be examined very
carefully.
1225
Is this something that the Minister of Health can do alone? It
is not. He should recognize that there is a crisis.
Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, he will do nothing.
None of us will do anything until we recognize that there is a
problem and that we need to do something.
The minister needs to do something. The government needs to do
something. If we achieve nothing else today, hopefully we will
impress upon the minister that something has to be done. He has
to get together with the provinces to get it done.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I think most hon. members would
agree it is fair to say that health care is the number one issue
for most Canadians. Political parties grapple and posture over
the Canada Health Act, medicare and the delivery of health
services. The public sees through most of this and in many ways
is far ahead of the political parties in terms of understanding
the major problems in health care.
For example, I was in Nova Scotia last week and met a middle
aged woman with undiagnosed recent loss of feeling in her
midsection and legs. This is obviously a major concern to her
and to her family. The doctor's office triumphantly phoned her
to say that it had obtained an appointment for her for an MRI on
November 5, five months away. These Canadians will be forced to
go to Bangor, Maine, and pay approximately $2,500 on demand for
an MRI. Any reasonable analysis would conclude it should be a
priority necessity of health care delivery. This is not an
isolated story. This story could be replicated across the
country. In B.C. they would go to Seattle or to Spokane rather
than to Bangor, Maine, and so on from west to east.
The public knows full well that there is rationing and that is a
two tier system is in play big time already. Politicians who
close their eyes or reject this reality are doing a great
disservice. We have seen evidence of that happening here today.
The answer for Canada lies in harnessing the best delivery
mechanisms for all Canadians at a cost society can afford. No
Canadian should be denied basic health care delivery. Nor should
Canadians who wish to step outside the public health care
delivery system be told they cannot do so. We do not tell the
Vancouver Canucks, the Toronto Maple Leafs or the Montreal
Canadiens that their hockey clubs cannot have their private
hyperbaric chambers or that they cannot have their team doctor,
do we?
I will reiterate the official opposition supply day motion:
That this House recognize the health care system of Canada is in
crisis, the status quo is not an option, and the system that we
have today is not sustainable; and, accordingly, that this House
call on the government to develop a plan to modernize the
Canadian health care system, and work with the provinces to
encourage positive co-operative relations.
That is a reasonable and progressive motion. Yet the Minister
of Health has already indicated the government will not buy into
supporting it.
The Liberals are health care hypocrites and hypocrites
generally. The 1997 Liberal red book stated that the Liberals
would not allow a two tier health care system and that they were
committed to a continuing role in the financing of medicare.
1230
What is the Liberal track record on financing health care? The
provinces know their federal transfers have been cut since 1993.
The Liberals spin the numbers and say, “Well, no, not really”.
Meanwhile, the naked truth is that the Liberals cut health care
to avoid other program reductions in the 1990s in order to
balance the annual budget. The deficit was eliminated by the
finance minister by off-loading a bigger burden for medicare onto
the provinces, and the Liberals have never made good for those
cuts.
Now the Liberals want to portray themselves as the great
defenders of medicare and place impossible constraints on the
provinces. The provinces are in an increasingly difficult set of
circumstances and we are witnessing some things that are coming
from that. We have bill 11 in Alberta. The Saskatchewan health
care review was announced yesterday. All the provinces are
demanding that the federal government reinstate funding to 1993
levels before the provincial governments will co-operate on other
issues with the federal government.
Health care delivery is a provincial responsibility. The only
way to focus on the patient is to encourage the provinces and the
federal government to check their politics at the door and
concentrate on stabilizing the funding and modernizing the Canada
Health Act. This will only happen through innovation on the part
of provinces and a flexible federal government that provides
freedom to the provinces to push ahead.
Here is a partial strategy that we should consider. The
provinces need leadership from the federal government to help
orchestrate change. Respecting the existing jurisdictional
framework is the surest way to begin building a sustainable,
enviable health care system. The long term funding base must be
restored. The provinces are calling for a $4.2 billion annual
increase.
The feds must initiate relations with the provinces to support
and encourage a health care system that works in the best
interests of Canadians. Co-operation is the key but that is not
what we have been seeing coming from the government recently, in
particular from the minister. We must dedicate our efforts to a
universal, portable, comprehensive and accessible health care
system. Does that remind you of the Canada Health Act, Madam
Speaker? It certainly does to me.
We must examine the roles of administration for better
efficiency, productiveness, and overall better service for the
patient. We must create standards and independent auditing for
greater transparency and delivery of health care. Without that
transparency we do not have accountability.
Our present health care delivery system has one fatal flaw: the
average consumer who utilizes that service has no idea what that
service actually costs. If the consumer does not know that, most
often the deliverer does not know that either. One cannot begin
to reform a system until both sides of that equation are well
aware of what the costs are. Canadians deserve no less. Health
care hypocrites, like the Minister of Health, should actually get
out of the way.
I now want to review the five basic principles of the Canada
Health Act, in particular the accessibility provisions. In 1993
we had an average wait of 9.3 weeks and in 1998 it went up to
13.3 weeks. People are waiting up to nine months to see a
specialist. We are also losing on the technology front.
Earlier I gave an example of what is happening with MRI waiting
lists in Canada and how different it is from the U.S. We are
failing on that score.
1235
In terms of universality, I have pointed out in this place and
in correspondence how remote communities are so discriminated
against in terms of their ability to access health care. Very
often it is the federal government, which is removing federal
infrastructure, that is actually working against the universality
of health care provision by its other actions. I have a major
concern on that front. The government is really not addressing
that and, in many ways, is discriminating against remote
communities.
The final thing I want to talk about is public administration.
Eighty per cent of health care costs are labour component,
whether it is doctors, nurses or administrators, and we must look
at that whole area in a constructive fashion.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I want to ask my colleague in the Canadian Alliance
whether or not he is familiar with the announcement made
yesterday by Premier Roy Romanow in my province of Saskatchewan.
Does the member support the initiative taken there, which is to
establish a commission that will spend the next six months doing
a study, issuing an interim report and then a final report in one
year's time? All that is within the parameter of abiding by the
principles of the Canada Health Act and perhaps expanding those
principles in order to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
The important thing about the Saskatchewan study is that it
believes in a single tier system, which is the premise of health
care in the country, and a publicly financed system.
As the member is probably aware, medicare was started in the
province of Saskatchewan by former Premiers Woodrow Lloyd and
Tommy Douglas of the NDP and CCF, and, of course, carried on
through Allan Blakeney and now Roy Romanow. Saskatchewan once
again is the only province that has struck a commission to do a
study on the future of health care.
I just want to know if the the member supports the Saskatchewan
initiative and the parameters of the study. Does he think it
would be a helpful example for the federal government to perhaps
emulate at the national level?
Mr. John Duncan: Madam Speaker, I did touch on that
initiative in my speech and I do support it. I think the
provinces are actually doing things in a vacuum from the
standpoint that the federal government should actually be the one
providing the leadership for that.
When the premier of Saskatchewan was asked that question last
night, he said the same thing. He agreed and was hoping that the
province of Saskatchewan's initiative would move the federal
government to show leadership and launch a similar national
review. We agree with that.
The provinces are doing things that they have no choice but to
do at this point because they have a disproportionate share of
the burden. It has all happened in a hurry. They have had to
increase their spending and take on added responsibilities at a
time when the cost of delivering health care was escalating
anyway. It is crunch time.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I think it is very
important that the Saskatchewan study is within the confines of
the principles of the Canada Health Act. It is important for us
to have a public health care system and not a two tier American
style system. We need to have a single payer system, which is
the public. Health care must be accessible to everyone. Health
care must be portable. Access to health care must not be based
on income, where one lives, the size of one's bank account or the
thickness of one's wallet. Those things are extremely important.
The other thing that is very important is that the federal
government provide more funding for health care. Many years ago,
when health care came in as a national program, the federal
government funded 50% of the cost.
1240
Today, in terms of cash transfers to the provinces, the federal
government funds 13 cents, 14 cents or perhaps 15 cents to the
provinces depending on the province.
If we are going to maintain health care as a universal program
that is accessible to all, portable and publicly financed, then
the federal government, with its huge and ballooning surplus,
must come to the plate and put $4.2 billion more into the fund
every year. This would be equivalent to the money it has taken
out over the last number of budgets. I think that is very
important. I hope my friend in the Alliance Party would support
that point of view as well.
Mr. John Duncan: Madam Speaker, I can only conclude that
the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle did not hear my speech because
I did touch on basically all of those issues and I do support the
$4.2 billion.
The one concern I have with the member's comment deals with what
I call the mantra of the single payer system from the standpoint
that if there is not a pre-existing two tier system in
Saskatchewan right now, then it is the only province that does
not have it. Canadians are buying health care with their own
money where they choose because they have no choice but to do so.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to have the opportunity to address the motion today.
Let us remember what is important for Canadians. This issue
comes down to access to high quality care in our public and
universal system.
Canadians value our health care system above all other social
programs and it is what sets us apart from other countries around
the world. To achieve that, Canadians expect governments to work
together, openly and with transparency. A lot of work has been
done between the federal, provincial and territorial governments
in the past, and that is how this government intends to approach
the health care system renewal now and in the future.
In the last two years alone much concrete work has been done to
lay the foundation for sustaining Canada's health care system and
the health of Canadians. In September 1998 the federal health
minister, with provincial and territorial ministers of health,
agreed to a number of key federal, provincial and territorial
priorities to facilitate governments working more closely and
collaboratively. Ministers identified the following future
directions and key priorities and emphasized the need to achieve
concrete results and improve accountability to Canadians.
Ministers agreed to joint action on maintaining a financially
sustainable, publicly funded Canadian health care system;
supporting high quality, integrated and continuing community
based health services; implementing population approaches to
improve the health of Canadians; promoting the development and
efficient use of information and research technology, and planning
and reporting systems; and, collaborating in areas such as
health, human resource planning, identifying best service
practices, research evaluation, primary care reform and public
health policy.
At their 1999 September meeting, federal, provincial and
territorial ministers of health reviewed the work accomplished
and noted concrete progress on their joint priorities. They
endorsed intensified collaborative work in primary care reform as
an essential element to ensuring the sustainability and
accessibility of our health care system; tasked federal,
provincial and territorial officials with preparing options for
strengthening the development of the health human resource
professionals; and, undertook to improve collaboration between
governments and health care providers.
As part of that commitment, last November the Minister of Health
co-chaired meetings of health ministers and representatives of
the medical and nursing professions. Furthermore, in the past
year federal, provincial and territorial ministers of health
released by significant reports on the health of Canadians and
the importance of investing in early childhood development;
endorsed a national strategy for collaborative action on tobacco
controls in Canada; released several reports on pharmaceutical
issues to ensure that drug prices are fair and reasonable, and
that drugs are prescribed and used appropriately; and, approved
the establishment of a council of organ and tissue donation and
transplantation.
1245
Madam Speaker, I also point out that I will be splitting my time
with my colleague from Waterloo—Wellington.
Provincial ministers of health noted that the
federal-provincial-territorial ministers meetings in the fall of
1999 were productive. They supported strategic direction in the
ministers' key priority areas such as sustainability of the
health care system, health human resources and preparation for an
aging population. Today, 12% of Canadians are now over the age
of 65. This is obviously a very important area and initiative we
will work on with our provincial and territorial colleagues. This
is only a partial accounting of the depth and breadth of the
federal-provincial-territorial collaboration of the health sector
on important health issues.
The government is committed and dedicated to working with the
provinces and territories to find common solutions to ensure the
future of the publicly funded health care system for the benefit
of Canadians. I stress that does not mean that as important and
complex issues are being considered, there is not room for
different points of view to be expressed and for open and frank
discussions to take place. Our focus is to renew the public
health care system. Working together on joint objectives and
priorities, consultation, and transparent information sharing are
some of the ways to strengthen the collaborative partnership.
This is what the government will continue to do.
The Prime Minister and the health minister have spoken about the
Government of Canada's commitment to sustaining, strengthening
and preserving public health care in Canada. The federal
minister is actively working with provincial and territorial
ministers to lay the groundwork for an agreement on health by
first ministers this fall. The federal minister has had positive
one on one discussions with provincial and territorial ministers.
He is speaking with them collaboratively this week to continue
their dialogue and to set out a concrete plan of action to
prepare recommendations on health for the first ministers'
consideration.
We are confident that this important work will succeed in
ensuring that the kinds of broad innovations that are necessary
to renew health care in this country are put in place with the
support of all governments acting together in the interest of all
Canadians.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. He
made a number of very good points as they relate to health care
in Canada.
He has done research and information gathering in his own riding
and perhaps other parts of Ontario near and close to where he
lives. Could he confirm for me whether Canadians really do want
the federal government simply to throw more money at health care
or whether, as I believe, people in his riding and elsewhere
would rather see the federal, provincial and territorial
governments roll up their sleeves and work together to come up
with a strategic long term plan? Once that was done, then put in
the money, the resources necessary to sustain that plan.
1250
The hon. member is very learned and one with great experience.
He was head of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and he
has a great wealth of knowledge. I wonder if he could comment on
that question.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Speaker, I had the pleasure a
few weeks ago to attend the Federation of Canadian Municipalities
annual convention. Many mayors and councillors gave me the same
message which was very clear. Canada's health care system needs
more than tinkering with. We need to deal with the structure.
Money alone will not solve the problem.
It is very clear that when we talk about pharmacare, primary
care and a lot of the structural issues that are delivered by the
provinces and territories, we as a federal government are
prepared to talk two streams. One is money, but most important,
is to make sure that this time next year or even five years from
now we are not talking about the same structural issues.
I want to clarify an erroneous impression given by my colleague
from the New Democratic Party. This government does not give 13
cents, 12 cents or 15 cents on the dollar. I would point out it
is a combination of cash and tax credits. The provinces very
conveniently forget about tax points and tax credits because they
know they total about 33 cents to 34 cents that the federal
government contributes.
If we are going to solve the problem, as my hon. colleague
suggested, we have to make sure that those issues are solved for
future generations. This is too important an issue to simply
talk money which we have already indicated we are prepared to do.
But we cannot do one and not do the other. We must solve it for
the future. That is what the government intends to do. That is
what the government will do. With the support of Canadians and
the provinces and territories, we will get the job done.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I rise today with great honour to participate in this
debate. This issue is of great interest not only to me and to
all members in the House, but to Canadians wherever they live in
this great country of ours. We must ensure that we look at the
whole issue of health care and that we have the facts straight
when it comes to the things the federal government is doing in
this very important area.
Most of us will agree that the state of health care in Canada is
the most important and pressing question in the country today.
Canadians wherever they live are looking for leadership. They
are looking not only to the provincial and territorial
governments, but to the federal government as well to play a
leading role in this important area and justifiably so. It is
something that is so fundamental. It goes to the very core of
who we are as a people and who we are as a nation.
Canadians wherever they live expect the federal government and
its territorial and provincial partners to work together to make
sure that there is a health care system in place not only for us
now, but for our children and our children's children. Canadians
expect that and rightfully so.
I appeal to everyone to redouble their efforts to make it happen
and to make it work. We must get together and have the meetings
required to set the long term strategy in place. It is too easy
simply to throw money at the system. I have travelled in the
last little while in British Columbia, New Brunswick and
Newfoundland and I can tell the House that people in all of those
places are consistent in what they say. They do not want us
simply to throw money at the problem. They want us to put in
place a long term strategy and a good plan. They want us to put
in place a long term view as opposed to simply throwing money at
the system now.
1255
Once that plan and long range vision is secured and most people
have agreed to it in terms of what we should do and how we should
do it, then put the necessary resources and money behind it to
make sure that it happens. It should not be just for the short
term, but a sustained process where people can look with
confidence at the health care system and know that it will be in
place for a while.
We can be justifiably proud of our great health care system. We
do not have to travel very far around the world to know that we
take an awful lot for granted here in Canada, and health care is
one of the things we take for granted. Yes, there are problems.
Yes, we need to make adjustments. Yes, we need to work with
others. Yes, we need to adjust the whole system to tailor it
into the 21st century.
There are a lot of new things happening in technology.
Demographics change and affect the system. All kinds of things
need to be done. We need to double or triple our efforts to make
sure that it happens and put in place the long term plan and
strategy and then put the money in place to sustain it.
I, along with the residents of Waterloo—Wellington and others,
insist and demand that the federal government take a lead role. I
am confident that is precisely what we are doing now and in
projections into the future we will certainly do precisely that.
That is what Canadians expect of the federal government in this
all important area. It is a fundamental core value of this great
country of ours that people go out of their way to proclaim and
to celebrate. It is certainly something I celebrate and I know
other members do as well, and we do so because it is of such
great value to all of us.
New demands are being placed on the system. I have already
mentioned demographics and how they will affect the health care
system in the future.
I also want to talk in terms of care being delivered in new
ways. With new technology and new things happening, that is
precisely what is taking place. We need to be part of that. That
is why when we developed the Canadian Institutes of Health
Research in Bill C-13, we did it with vision and foresight. Under
those institutes all kinds of things will be coming out, new
medical procedures, new cures for diseases and new technology.
We do not have to take a back seat to anyone when it comes to
medical science and the great medical community that is right
here in this country. One of the proudest things I did as
chairman of the health committee was to call in witnesses from
the United States. There were five of them. Young Canadians had
gone to the United States for experience and might have stayed,
but as a result of Bill C-13 and the Canadian Institutes of
Health Research, they are coming back to Canada to bring the
knowledge gained in other places, in this case the United States,
back to their home country. How very, very proud we can be of
those young people and the others who will do the same as a
result of the good work of the government when it comes to
medical research.
We have all heard the stories of emergencies and the backup of
people waiting especially during flu season. We know about
having to wait for specialists. These are huge problems in the
medical system. Quite frankly I cringe when I hear them because
it is not what we have come to expect. We need to do the
necessary work to make sure that is not the case.
In an interesting poll, Canadians were asked if they had
firsthand experience with the medicare system. Of those who said
yes, 80% said that it had been a good experience for them. But
when they were asked if they had heard stories about problems or
if there had been dissatisfaction with what they perceived the
system to be, it was the reverse, because 80% said there have
been problems and only 20% said there was confidence.
There is a real dichotomy between the reality of 80% of
Canadians getting good service and the 20% who feel that they
have confidence in the system.
Between reality and perception there is this kind of dichotomy.
1300
We need to work hard to change that perception and make it into
a reality that all Canadians can enjoy. We need to restore this
confidence. That is part of our challenge in this very important
health care debate, to make sure that we provide the kind of
quality care that is affordable, accessible and beneficial to
Canadians and their families.
As my colleague the Minister of Health has stated, this is
going to require more than just money. I have already talked
about that. We need to put in place a plan. More to the point,
we need to put in place some linkages among the various sectors
in health care service delivery. We need to ensure that people
are receiving appropriate types of care at appropriate settings
and at appropriate times. The care has to match the settings,
which have to match the times. That is what is required for
Canadians wherever they live in Canada.
One of the ways we will go about doing this is by building a
more patient-centred approach. Currently, for example, patients
who receive prescription drugs free while in hospital have to pay
out of their own pockets for those same drugs when they go home,
unless they have access to such benefits through their employer,
province or territory.
Our mothers and fathers leaving the hospital may not have access
to the home and community services they need. Or, if they can
find them, they cannot afford them. These are all problems.
One in five Canadian women are providing care for someone at
home, on average, 28 hours a week. Half of those women, many of
whom have children, also work outside the home.
Too often patients have to navigate the bureaucracy by
themselves, without any kind of guidance in a very complex and
complicated area. We need to help these people, not hinder them.
For some, in fact many, it is much too complex and confusing.
Laboratory tests are often repeated unnecessarily. Patients are
asked to recount their medical history time and time again.
Records are not immediately available when needed.
The point I am making is that all of these are signs and
symptoms of a health sector where instead of linkages there are
silos. We need to break down these silos and provide the
linkages. That is the important part of this whole equation.
What would an integrated health care system look like? That is
really getting to the essence of what we should have. What would
it look like?
An integrated system would, first of all, bring together health
promotion, disease prevention, treatment and care. The full
range of medically required health services would be properly
funded and closely connected, from primary care delivered by an
interdisciplinary team to the hospital bed, to home and community
care, and to long term facilities, ensuring Canadians a smooth
transition from one health service provider to another. That is
important.
By way of conclusion, let me say that this past week I attended
a conference on tele-medicine in the riding of
Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh. It was as a result of the
work done by the Minister of Health, the minister responsible for
rural development and the chair of the rural caucus, the member
for Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, who have put in
place tele-medicine for rural Canadians. This is what we are
talking about. These are the good things.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of the
member for Waterloo—Wellington. There appeared to be a different
person giving that speech from the person we have come to know as
chair of the Standing Committee on Health.
Let me quote a few things from the member's speech. He said
that we should be looking at health care, that people are looking
for leadership in health care and justifiably so, and that it is
at the core of what every Canadian believes is important. He
said that we should be re-doubling our efforts, that we should
make it happen, that we should make it work and that we should
put in place a long term health strategy.
That is incredulous. This very member, the member for
Waterloo—Wellington, who was chair of the Standing Committee on
Health, refused time after time after time to consider a request
from all parties to study the situation of medicare in Canada.
1305
For three years now, the NDP has asked the government to
commission a study, as quickly as possible, to look at the crisis
in medicare, to look at some of the challenges in medicare and to
look at some of the solutions. This so-called member for
Waterloo—Wellington has on every occasion denied, blocked,
shut the committee down and censored it.
The Saskatchewan NDP, led by Premier Romanow, also tried to help
us get a commission. After two years he gave up and commissioned
his own study. This morning he announced that Saskatchewan was
taking the lead in defining a new vision of medicare to meet the
challenges of the 21st century. He is not waiting for the
Liberals to do something about health care because they are the
ones who have butchered it.
Mr. Romanow also believes that medicare faces many challenges,
including new medical treatments, rising costs, an aging
population and shortage of key health professionals. The
commission the premier struck today will identify those key
challenges. Secondly, it will recommend an action plan for the
sustainable delivery of health services across the province.
Finally, the Saskatchewan commission will identify longer term
opportunities for reform that will ensure a strong future for a
publicly funded and administered medicare system.
This is my question for the member for Waterloo—Wellington. He
talked about all of these things, which he was in a position to
do something about for the last two years. Why has the member
not undertaken to do what he thinks has to be done? He got up
and gave his little speech, which was not worth two cents or the
paper it was written on because it did not relate to any of his
actions in the past.
Can the member define the comment in his speech that he is going
to re-double his efforts?
Mr. Lynn Myers: Madam Speaker, members of the NDP are
blustering and huffing and puffing as usual. They caterwaul,
bray and squeal like stuffed pigs at the slaughter house.
The point is that I was very happy—
Mr. John Solomon: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I think the member is taking this personally. I am not
sure if you know this, but in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules
and Forms making reference to members as animals is really not
allowed. I would ask you to interject and raise this with the
member.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Yes, I believe the
hon. member has a good point. I would ask the hon. member for
Waterloo—Wellington to choose his words more judiciously.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Madam Speaker, I did not say he was; I
said he acted like it. There is a difference here and I will
be judicious in that regard.
Let me point out to him that I was very happy to be part of the
health committee that looked at natural health products. I was
very happy to be part of the health committee that looked at
organ donation. I was very happy to be part of the health
committee that brought in the CIHR, Bill C-13, which I reported
in the House, which NDP members did not want to fully understand.
More to the point, they did not want to support it. I scratched
my head and asked why the NDP would not support research and
development and the doubling of money.
Look at how Bob Rae destroyed health care in Ontario. He closed
hospitals and delisted all kinds of services. That is who NDP
members are. They are the Bob Raes of the world. They would
wreak havoc, left, right and centre—mostly left. They would do
it in the most egregious fashion, leaving people decimated in
their wake.
In answer to the hon. member's question, I was happy to bring in
the CIHR, Bill C-13. Last week I was very happy to bring in
tobacco regulations concerning labelling and other requirements.
If he thinks that we are not doing anything, he should attend the
committee. He should come and look at what we are doing. He
would be gratified to see that the health committee is not only
working effectively, it is doing the right things for Canadians.
1310
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to the official opposition supply
day motion.
I would like to read the motion again. We are partway through
the day on this debate and I think it is important that we have
this kind of exchange in the House. It may be the only time we
will get to talk about health care in this parliament. We
certainly cannot talk about it in the health committee. The
motion reads:
That this House recognize that the health care system in Canada
is in crisis, the status quo is not an option, and the system
that we have today is not sustainable; and, accordingly, that
this House calls upon the government to develop a plan to
modernize the Canadian health care system, and to work with the
provinces to encourage positive co-operative relations.
Normally I am delighted to rise to bring the concerns of the
constituents of my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, and indeed all
Canadians, before the House of Commons. However, today I am
saddened that we have to have this kind of debate.
Canadians know and cherish the health care system that we have
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 will
have adequate health care available to meet their needs.
Thanks to the Liberal government, Canadians no longer have this
comfort. The cold reality is that the health care of yesterday
has been destroyed by the Liberals of today and the system will
not meet the health care requirements of tomorrow.
For a few moments I would like to describe the problems which I
have seen resulting from the government's uncaring approach to
health care over the last seven years.
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 Liberals had slashed away over $6.3 billion
annually. Today the transfers are still $3.3 billion lower than
when the Liberals came to power in 1993.
In total they have stripped away $24.7 billion and, according to
their budget plans, will continue this pattern with the removal
of another $9.9 billion over the next three budget years. The
total is an incredible $34.6 billion gouged out of Canada's
health care system over a projected 11 years. That works out to
$1,100 less in health care for every man, woman and child in
Canada today.
Mr. Speaker, can you imagine what another $1,100 spent on health
care for every person in your riding would do to alleviate the
pain, the suffering and the discomfort which many Canadians feel?
In my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan there are approximately
100,000 people. That translates into $110 million missing from
health care that should go to the people of my riding. That $110
million could have been used to hire more nurses, to maintain and
reopen operating rooms. This is money that could have been used
to ensure that more people were not subjected to longer than
necessary waiting lists, and for the opportunity to purchase or
upgrade new medical technology equipment.
There is not a region in this country that has not been
negatively affected by the callous financial approach that the
Liberal government has inflicted upon Canadians from coast to
coast.
At the Cowichan District Hospital in Duncan a dialysis unit sat
idle. The primary reason it sat idle, simply put, was because
there was not enough money in the system to hire trained
personnel to operate the equipment. I ask my hon. colleagues
here today to imagine the sense of concern that runs through a
parent's heart when their child requires a dialysis machine to
live and yet the equipment in the local hospital has never been
used because of the lack of funding by the federal government.
I know what that feeling is. My daughter is one of those who
may have required dialysis, and yet, 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 one
hour away from the nearest dialysis unit, and that was not always
available to children.
1315
It costs approximately $630,000 to purchase a dialysis unit. The
annual operating costs for 36 patients totals approximately $1
million. Can we imagine if a portion of the $110 million the
Liberals have ripped out of the system in my riding alone over
the last seven years could have been used for dialysis in the
Cowichan District Hospital? Can we imagine the sense of relief a
parent or patient feels when a unit is finally opened and put
into operation? Unfortunately this unit is already approaching
capacity and 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 dialysis treatment.
Here is another situation. In 1991 in my riding of
Nanaimo—Cowichan Mr. Pat Carson donated $861,000 for the
purchase of a CT scanner. Unfortunately Mr. Carson's wife had
died of cancer. While there are no guarantees it was thought
that earlier treatment for her could have been initiated through
a faster diagnosis by way of a CT scan.
I know hon. members are wondering how the scanner is working and
if it has indeed saved lives. I am sad to say that the scanner
has never been purchased. The money has now accumulated to over
$1.3 million and will continue to grow until the operating budget
is put in place that can operate this equipment.
What budget is needed? All that is needed is approximately
$500,000 annually. On behalf of the constituents of
Nanaimo—Cowichan I can easily imagine $500,000 could be found in
the $110 million the Liberal government has taken out of health
care for my riding alone over the last seven years.
If these were the only stories then the story of health care in
Canada today would not be such a sad tale of woe. Unfortunately
this is only one of thousands of stories across the nation.
Through the rest of today as we speak to this most important
subject the House will hear of surgery waiting lists, cancelled
surgeries, long waiting periods to see specialists, pain,
suffering, and unfortunately even death.
In my home province of British Columbia we have had patients
lying on gurneys in the hallways and in the linen closets of
local hospitals. Cancelled surgeries at the hospitals in my
riding in Nanaimo—Cowichan are a daily occurrence. We have done
better in the past but we must do better than this in the future.
The track record of the Liberal government speaks loud and
clear. On the occasions when I have raised at the Standing
Committee on Health the issue of studying the overall system of
health care in Canada unfortunately the Liberal majority said no.
During the discussion at the agenda planning subcommittee one day
one Liberal member actually had the audacity to state that health
care was too big a topic for the committee to study.
Can members imagine that? Canadian health care was too big for
the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health to study. If
the Standing Committee on Health cannot study health, may I ask
who should study health?
Earlier this month the Canadian Institute for Health Information
released a report which stated that the number of health
professionals from 1988 to 1997 did not keep pace with Canada's
population growth, resulting in fewer health professionals per
capita in 1997. Over that 10 year period the number of
professionals per 10,000 population declined by 1.7%, from 185 to
182. Based on these numbers today we are short 9,000 health
professionals in the country.
I further ask hon. members to consider our aging population.
According to Statistics Canada the demographics of Canada for
2001 will have 13% of our population aged 65 or older. By 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 3,945,000 to 7,759,000,
almost a complete doubling of this age group.
1320
I remind hon. members that with a few exceptions it will
probably include all of us here. It includes our peers, our
personal friends, our neighbours and many family members. If we
really want a universal health care system when we reach age 65,
we must do something to heal the hurting health system right now.
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 medical schools per
year. That amounts to almost 40% of our medical school
graduates. It now takes half the output of all Canadian medical
schools to replace the physicians who leave the country annually.
One reason is simply the high cost of medical education. The
president of the CMA asserts that the debt of a graduating
medical student can rise as high as a $140,000. Other reasons
given by the former director of research at the Association of
Canadian Medical Colleges of Canada are health care cuts and
plunging morale.
Here are some other facts. Some 731 doctors left the country in
1996 and 659 in 1997, for a total of 1,390 doctors in just two
years. Doctors moving south of the border represent one-quarter
of all medical personnel leaving the country every year. Most of
those leaving are nurses. A 1997 study of 489 orthopedic
surgeons graduating between 1985 and 1994 show that one-quarter
had moved to the U.S. 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.
CMA has also stated that there is a severe shortage of high tech
physicians capable of reading the results of the latest findings
in medical technology. There is currently 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 is at least seven years and specialist
training takes thirteen or fourteen years. We are short of
trained staff now, not in seven to thirteen years. A crisis
looms on the horizon. Yet the government remains intent upon
destroying rather than renewing our stressed health care system.
The Liberal government has attempted to make the claim that it
is the only party willing to support the five tenets of the
Canada Health Act. That is just not true. The 1997 red book
stated the Liberals' commitment 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.
If that is indeed what the Liberals meant in 1997, why have they
misled the Canadian public? How far is that from the reality of
today when the government is truly the architect of the demise of
the Canada Health Act?
Across the country there are examples of abuses of the Canada
Health Act. In my province of British Columbia where the NDP
government reigns supreme the workers' compensation board is
allowed by the Canada Health Act, and supported by the
government, to send its patients with knee problems to a private
clinic either in the United States or the province of Alberta. To
me that is queue jumping. To me that violates the whole
principle of universality. The government ought to do something
about that if it is indeed the protector of the Canada Health
Act.
People who need MRIs should be careful. There may be a three or
four month line-up, or perhaps they can pay $800 cash at a
private clinic and avoid the line-up. If they do not like the
waiting time involved, they can take their credit cards and head
south of the border.
Many Canadian doctors and nurses are there already. When they
get there, there will perhaps be a reunion of friends they have
not seen for a while.
1325
Who then is responsible for the two tier system in Canada today?
It is not this side of the House. It is the other side of the
House. Has the Liberal government attempted to resolve these
issues? The simple answer is no. Rather than working with the
provinces and attempting to ensure that all Canadians have
quality health care, the Prime Minister and Minister of Health
prefer to antagonize, to cause dissension and not to build unity.
In a press release yesterday and in an article in the Ottawa
Citizen the Premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Romanow, is quoted
as saying that he has been pushing the federal government for
several months to create a national inquiry but was turned down.
I am not surprised. I was turned down in the health committee
over the last two and a half years. Why should it give me that
privilege when it will not even give it to the Premier of
Saskatchewan?
Canadians are starting to see past the Liberal smoke and mirror
show when it comes to health. I think they are getting tired of
it. Canadians are now starting to turn to other people, to other
groups in the country and to other levels of government to try to
right the wrongs the Liberal government has forced upon them.
Corrective actions cannot be implemented immediately, but they
could begin immediately if there were some kind of consensus
building shown by the leadership of the government to do
something about the most important problem for Canadians today.
My colleagues and I recognize that money alone is not the whole
solution. We cannot deny that many of the problems were caused
by the significant reduction in funding that the Liberal
government has slashed from health care. What a drop it has been
from 1996 when it committed to a 50:50 split to now when
approximately 11% of health care dollars going into the system
come from the Liberal government.
Many of the solutions will require funding. Yes, further
efficiencies can be found in the system. Certainly we need more
trained professionals. Indeed we face challenges that we have
not even previously encountered. Yes, we have an aging
population. Yes, the delivery of health care services remains a
provincial responsibility.
What positive role has the federal government put forward? Can
we name one thing it has done? To date it has been nothing. It
has been irresponsible in its lack of solutions to the health
care crisis we now face in Canada. It has been inconsistent in
the enforcement of the Canada Health Act.
An hon. member: They do not think we have a problem.
Mr. Reed Elley: Yes, they do not think we have a problem.
The Minister of Health stood in the House today and said there
was not a crisis. I was on a radio talk show not too long ago.
That is not what Canadians are saying.
The government has been hypocritical in its actions with the
Standing Committee on Health. Even past Liberals such as Tom
Kent state that the Liberal government is the biggest threat to
medicare in the country. In short, the Liberals have continually
thrown roadblocks in front of every possible means of finding a
positive solution to the greatest problem we currently face in
Canada today. It is time to walk the talk, but talk is all we
seem to get from the Liberal government on health care.
What can Canadians expect to receive from the Canadian Alliance
when it becomes government? As my hon. colleague from Red Deer
previously stated, health care has been on the back burner for
far too long and must be moved to the front. It is the issue
that concerns Canadians the most. It is the issue, contrary to
Liberal rhetoric, on which Liberals have spent the least amount
of constructive time, energy and financial resources.
The Liberal government has made every effort to destroy any
possibility of a healthy, co-operative relationship between the
federal and provincial governments in health care. If it were
really concerned about co-operating with the provinces, it would
have had a high level meeting between the Prime Minister and the
premiers a long time ago.
Under the Canadian Alliance, Canadians expect two central
themes, patient centred and results based health care. I believe
that for far too long the patient has taken the backseat in
health care, and yet the patient is supposedly the focal point of
the entire system.
I believe we need to move beyond traditional thinking. We need
to remember why we have a health care system. Is it to create
newer technology? Is it to create jobs for health care
professionals? Is it to create an industry for the drug
companies?
The simple answer is, no. The health care system should be
centred on the patient first.
1330
The second issue is one of a results based health care system
running tandem with the centrality of patient care. If we
started to zero in on both of those things in this country we
could expect to have results and a better health care system than
we have right now.
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague
for having put such an important issue in front of this House on
the opposition day. It is something we need to work together on.
As a member from Ontario, I think about the hundreds of
thousands of dollars, perhaps millions, that Premier Mike Harris
spent on advertising to attack the health care system.
When my hon. colleague returns to his riding would he consider
asking his provincial colleagues to work with the federal
government because, yes, we do need to fix this problem and we do
need to work together on it?
Mr. Reed Elley: Madam Speaker, to begin with, I am
surprised that this member heard my speech considering the fact
that he carried on a fairly long, loud conversation with somebody
else while I was speaking, which disturbed me greatly. Other
than that, I will try to answer his question.
Mr. Larry McCormick: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. It is probably the last day in the House and I see some
smiles opposite. I proudly say, when I go back to my riding or
across this country, that I do have friends in all parties of
this House. However, it is not right to make a comment like
that. In the six years that I have been here, it would be untrue
for me to say that I have not been interrupted vocally and loudly
during one of my debates.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid that is
not a point of order.
Mr. Reed Elley: Madam Speaker, I will try to answer the
question put by my hon. colleague.
We have been informed by the provincial health ministers that
they have asked, on several occasions, for a meeting with the
Minister of Health and the Prime Minister on this issue and have
always been refused. The dates keep being put off and are being
put further and further in the future.
The government, through the Prime Minister and the Minister of
Health, should be concerned about the health care in Canada. All
Canadians believe it is in a crisis, contrary to what the health
minister may think. The government has had seven years to deal
with this deteriorating health care system and it has done
exactly the opposite. It has let this thing go and go, to the
point where the provinces now have to take matters into their own
hands and do things themselves. All one has to do is to look at
bill 11. Whether we agree with it or not, the provinces had to
take things into their own hands and finally do something.
Just look at the inquiry that the province of Saskatchewan has
to do because the Liberal government is not showing leadership on
this issue.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I appreciated a lot of what the deputy critic said about
health care, and he said it so well.
Does the deputy critic have the same interpretation as I do
concerning the fact that the Minister of Health got up today and
said that he was going to oppose this motion. The motion says
that health care is not sustainable in its present form, the
status quo is not an option and that the health care system is in
crisis.
By saying he is opposed, is he in fact saying that the status
quo is just fine, that it is sustainable and that there is in
fact no crisis? It seems to me that is what he is saying, or
what the Liberal members across, who will be opposing the motion,
will be saying with their vote. They should really think about
their vote if that is the message that they are sending today.
Mr. Reed Elley: Madam Speaker, I must say that I was
appalled to hear the minister's comments. It was like me going
to my doctor with a severe case of pneumonia and him giving me a
sugar pill instead of penicillin.
That is the way his speech came across today. It was syrupy
sentimentalism. It spent a quarter of the time on the American
system. We do not want to hear about the American system. We do
not want the American system. We want a fixed, made in Canada
system. We have people in the House who are willing to work
toward that solution. We would like the Liberals to get on
board.
1335
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I will be splitting my time with the member for
Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington.
I am pleased to participate in a dialogue in the House today on
our health care system. It is the most important challenge that
members of parliament have before them. Some may describe it as
crisis, others will describe it as a challenge, but I will
describe it as dynamics.
Canadians understand that we are not a static nation and it is a
truism to say that the status quo is not an option, which is part
of the motion before us.
We are a dynamic system now. We do have an aging society. The
technology of medicine has changed dramatically. The cost of
pharmacare is very significant now and it is growing because of
the technology of drugs. As an example, there is a drug called
TPT which is for heart attack victims. It costs something in the
range of $3,000 for one dose, whereas the standard drug used in
the past for heart attack victims cost only a few hundred
dollars.
There is no question that the members and the motion are
correct, the status quo is not an option. I cannot imagine that
anything that we have in Canada will remain the same forever and
a day. We obviously have to respond.
Part of the premise of the motion, which I think the prior
speaker stated when he closed off his speech, was what positive
role has the federal government played on behalf of health care.
The member's answer was “nothing”.
As a member of parliament and a member of the health committee
throughout the 35th parliament and for the last year or so, I
have taken a special interest in the issue of health. Prior to
becoming a member of parliament, I served on the board of
directors of my local hospital for nine years. I was
vice-chairman, the treasurer and I was involved in the finances.
After nine years I felt very comfortable that I had an idea of
what the costs were of delivering health care through a hospital
to Canadians, our constituents. When I became a member of
parliament I wanted to follow through on the experience I had in
my community and become part of the health committee.
One of the first things that happened in the health portfolio,
and in direct response to the member's rhetorical question about
what the federal government has done, in 1994 the National Forum
on Health was established. That was exactly what the government
had included in its platform of the 1993 election. The forum had
health experts from all across Canada who spent two years
consulting with each and every vested interest group in the
health care sector to determine what the state of health care
was, to determine what resources were there and to determine what
the needs or deficiencies were.
One of the significant things that they found about the health
care system was that, in their words, “There seemed to be enough
money in the system”.
At that time, the forum reported that there could be as much as
$11 billion of waste in health care spending because of how it
was being spent. It was not being spent wisely. It was not
getting good value for the dollar. The forum identified a need
to change the system and to start thinking about what fundamental
principles had to be dealt with in order that our health care
system would continue to be dynamic.
1340
Much of the debate that has gone on so far has had a lot to do
with money. Members will know that the province of Quebec had,
from the 1998 budget, some $800 million available for health care
which was in a bank account in Toronto. This money was never
used. The province of Ontario was sitting on $400 million that
it never used. The province of Newfoundland was sitting on money
that it had not used, money that was was transferred and
available to it immediately as a result of the budget initiatives
in 1998.
I do not think members here will argue with the premise that
dollars alone are not the solution. We have provinces that are
in surplus positions. How can they say they need the money? If
health care is the number one priority of Canadians, why is it
that the provinces have priorities which do not match those of
the people themselves? Why does Ontario say that its priority is
to give $4.3 billion in tax cuts to Ontario taxpayers when they
are also saying that health care is in a crisis. If health care
is in a crisis, why have the provinces not responded? The money
was there. If it was simply a matter of money, they would have
done it.
By their actions alone, the provinces do not agree that there is
a crisis. The provinces do not agree with the premise of the
motion. However, they do agree, as do all Canadians, that we do
have some challenges. The health care system has to respond to
the growing realities of Canadian society, an aging society, a
society where technology is taking over and non-invasive
practices are taking place. The costs of MRI machines and CT
scanners are substantial. Canadians have to understand that the
cost of pharmacare is growing.
When I was first on the board of directors of the Mississauga
Hospital, the average length of stay per patient was something
like 7.2 days. During the nine years that I was on the board, the
average length of stay of a patient at the Mississauga Hospital
went down to 4.8 days. Concurrently, the 650 bed hospital was
reduced down to 550 beds. However, at the very same time that
100 beds were reduced, and this is a significant number of beds,
they concurrently introduced an ambulatory care system that
provided day surgery. Instead of people arriving at the hospital
a day before the operation, being there for their operation and
then convalescing at the hospital, this was eliminated with the
ambulatory care system. People now come in the day they need
surgery and convalesce at home. However, this has created other
problems and other challenges for us to deal with.
As all members know and understand, if patients have shorter
lengths of stays in hospitals and convalesce at home, this puts a
tremendous burden on families because they are supposed to be
there to provide support. Home nursing care may not be readily
accessible. There may be some difficulties in providing that
kind of service. These are some of the challenges that we have
to face.
What else has the federal government done? In 1993 we started
with a $42 billion deficit. There was no question that we had to
deal with that fiscal crisis so that we could sustain the kind of
health care, and social program and support systems for Canadians
that reflected the values of Canadians. As soon as we fixed
that, what happened in 1998? Some $11.5 billion was injected
into health care. In the last budget, $2.5 billion went into
health care.
The health minister has met with his provincial counterparts,
exactly what the motion says we should start to do.
We cannot agree with the motion because we cannot say we should
start doing something that we are already doing. To agree with
the motion would be to say that we have not done anything.
1345
We have met and negotiated with the provinces. Tomorrow there
is another meeting. Canadians will be pleased to know that in
September there will be another first ministers meeting that
hopefully will bring to a conclusion the negotiations between the
federal government and the provincial governments on the next
step.
Let me assure everyone that the next step will not just be the
transfer of money. It will be how we are going to make our
health care system more dynamic so it better meets the present
needs of Canadians.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, I wanted to put some
propositions to the member about the big squeeze the federal
government made in the reduction of transfer payments concerning
the health care envelope.
Was it in the parental mode saying that it knew best, implying
that Canadians were getting too much health care, that the
provinces were actually wasteful and that the federal bureaucrats
in Ottawa knew how to run local hospitals in a much better way?
Was it implying that there was a lot of slack and excess in the
system because of what the federal government gave? Is it asking
now for a more dynamic system, yet saying it is not money?
How are the five principles of the Canada Health Act going to be
enhanced and maintained unless we are prepared to give the
provinces the wiggle room? The federal government cannot have it
both ways saying that it is going to cast things in cement but it
is not going to give them much more money and it is not going to
give the provinces who have the constitutional jurisdiction to
deal with health care any wiggle room either.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, the member implies that
somehow the federal government operates hospitals. He should
know that the provinces have the responsibility for the
administration of the health care delivery system. The federal
government's responsibilities are to maintain the five pillar
principles of the Canada Health Act.
The member also should know that in 1993 the transfers to the
provinces for health care were about $28 billion. In 2000 the
transfers to the provinces for health care will be $30 billion,
more than they were in 1993. Over the last two years there has
been a full 25% increase in the cash.
The member should also know that the federal government has made
it very clear that there is more money available for health care.
The federal government will be contributing more money to health
care. All we need to do is make sure that the health care money
that is going to be transferred to the provinces will be spent
wisely and that there are standards that can be monitored so that
all people, whether they be in federal or provincial governments,
will have the means to demonstrate to all Canadians that their
health care dollars, their tax dollars, are being spent wisely.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
listened to my colleague's remarks with great interest. I know
of his knowledge of the financial side of health care. It is my
understanding that although Canadians are more than willing to
pay for good health care, the most economical way to deliver good
health care to all citizens is a single publicly funded system.
Would he care to comment on that?
Mr. Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, that conclusion was
reached by this House in its discussions on Alberta's bill 11.
The Canadian Alliance party is demanding that Canada look at
some of these innovative two tier models. The fact remains that
the two tier philosophy of the Canadian Alliance would create
longer waiting lists and would be more costly and less productive
for Canadians in terms of health care. That is a fact based on
those jurisdictions in which there is a parallel private two tier
health system.
There is no question this government is committed to the
principles of the Canada Health Act: universality, portability,
accessibility, comprehensiveness and publicly funded, to the
exclusion of the two tier health system that is being proposed by
at least one Canadian Alliance leadership candidate.
One of the reasons the Canadian Alliance web page on the health
initiative is blank is that its members have not decided what
they will do until they find out who their leader is.
1350
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity
to speak to the number one concern of Canadians and that is
health care.
I want to take the time to recognize the great work of the
health care professionals in my riding and across Canada. We live
in a better country because of the work of our professionals. In
rural and small-town Canada they often go the extra mile without a
lot of thanks and I say thank you.
One of the key roles of the Government of Canada is helping
Canadians to maintain and improve their health. It does so in
several ways, most notably by ensuring the continuing
availability of our publicly funded health care system.
Providing leadership in the areas of health protection and
promotion, the federal government fulfils its mandate in health
through various approaches, always respecting the primary roles
of the provinces in health care delivery. For example, it
contributes financially to the provinces and territories in
support of their health care systems and through fiscal measures
for individuals such as health and medical expense allowances.
It interprets and enforces the principles of the Health Care
Act. It ensures that Canadians have the benefits of timely access
to safe, effective drugs and products, and that Canadians are
protected from health risks associated with pharmaceuticals,
blood products and various medical devices and consumer products.
It conducts and funds health research. It develops national
disease control strategies in collaboration with the provinces
and territories. It ensures access to the community based health
care services for first nations and Inuit.
When exercising its leadership and responsibilities in the areas
of health promotion, disease prevention and overall management of
risks to health, the federal government acts in the spirit of
partnership with the provinces and in collaboration with health
stakeholders and Canadians.
Some recent concrete examples of federal-provincial
collaboration include the development of a strengthened blood
system in Canada, intergovernmental action on tobacco control and
smoking cessation, and initiatives such as the health transition
fund supporting provincial-territorial innovations in home care,
pharmacare, primary care and better integrated health services
for all Canadians.
The Government of Canada often acts as a facilitator and at
times as a co-ordinator on health issues with pan-Canadian
dimensions. It has done so on a range of issues in the past, for
example to support the development of universal health insurance
dating to the 1940s and research and support in areas including
child, maternal, mental and dental health also dating to the
1940s. In fact, there is a long tradition of federal-provincial
co-operation in the health sector.
The principles and values which have long guided the federal
government in intergovernmental collaboration in the health arena
are also consistent with those outlined in the social union
framework agreement.
An excellent current example of the benefits of
federal-provincial co-operation are two initiatives announced
recently by our federal Minister of Health. They are the
innovations in rural and community health and the Canadian health
infostructure partnerships program, known as CHIPP. Both
initiatives are meant to ensure that all Canadians no matter
where they live in Canada have access to top health care.
The innovations in rural and community health is a $50 million
investment. Two-thirds of this money will go toward supporting
innovations in community health care such as access to home and
community care, affordability and accessibility of
pharmaceuticals, and improvement in integrated service delivery.
Another $11 million will go toward rural health. The objectives
of the rural health grants and contributions programs are to
promote integration and accessibility of health services, to
explore ways to address workforce issues and to examine system
reforms to improve the delivery of health services.
Health Canada has been working closely with the provinces and
territories in the development of our rural health grants and
contributions program to identify areas of shared concern.
All provinces and territories agreed that the objectives and
priorities for the funding program complement and support their
own.
1355
The Canadian health infostructure partnerships program, CHIPP,
is a two year $80 million shared cost incentive program which
will support the implementation of innovative applications of
information and communication technologies in the health sector.
It will focus on two priorities: telehealth and protected
electronic patient records.
Telehealth is a key element in improving access to health
services for all Canadians, especially those in the rural and
remote areas. It represents a great opportunity for our country
to improve access to care, as well as to develop a cutting edge
industry.
Electronic patient records will also facilitate improved patient
care through improving the integration of services, avoiding
needless tests, and better prescription benefits.
As chair of the rural caucus on this side of the House and as
someone who lives in a rural area of Canada, I have had the
opportunity to speak to a lot of my constituents and often with
other rural Canadians across the country, about the health care
challenges which face rural and remote Canada. We know about the
difficulties that rural areas have in attracting and keeping
health care professionals.
After a long period of consultation we recommended to the
Minister of Health that an effort be made to move to multi-use or
multidisciplinary primary care approaches. The minister
supported our recommendations and I thank him. It will be a
priority area of discussion at the federal-provincial level. May
I also say that I am delighted that the Canadian Institutes of
Health Research interim governing council has recommended the
creation of an office of rural health to promote and support
rural health research.
These are only a few ways that federal, provincial and
territorial co-operation has produced results in this country.
Let me conclude my remarks by saying that Canadians no matter
where they live expect health services of the highest quality.
They want their governments to work together and not play
politics. They want them to come up with lasting solutions to
ensure the future of publicly funded health care. The Government
of Canada is committed to federal-provincial partnerships to
serve the health care interests of all Canadians.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will have five
minutes for questions and comments when debate is resumed on the
motion.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
LEGACY OF LOGAN
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to present what is
happening across Ontario on the development of a history during
the millennium period.
As part of Canada's ongoing millennium celebration, I was
fortunate to attend a book launch for the Logan township history
book entitled Legacy of Logan.
The lifeblood of any community is the people who live there. The
Legacy of Logan has captured that mood. The book covers
the area's history from the beginning of the Canada Company to
the present by providing rich detail on the lives of everyday
people from the area, such as farmers, businessmen, war veterans,
teachers and clergy, and the institutions they created.
Special congratulations go to Barbara Scherbarth, the chair of
the Logan Township History Book Committee, and especially to
Hilary Machan who worked tirelessly to edit the 700 page tome.
Congratulations to all those in Logan Township.
* * *
PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, once again we are reminded why the federal Tories
went from 211 seats to two in the House. The House leader of the
fifth party has tabled motions to reduce the operating
expenditures of specific government departments. Let us look at
these specific motions.
The Tories want to take $1 billion out of health care. They
want to slash the operating budget of our military by $7 billion.
However, when it comes to the mismanagement of the human resources
department which has been wasting taxpayers' dollars all year,
would the Clark Tories significantly reduce that department? No.
Once again Joe Clark is proving just how out of touch he is with
ordinary Canadians by gutting health care, destroying our defence
department, yet ensuring there is plenty of money to continue
with the legacy of the billion dollar boondoggle in HRDC. With
policies like that, it is no wonder that 130,000 people have
signed up to join the Canadian Alliance in hopes of a new
government, a change they have been looking forward to for a long
time.
* * *
NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
delighted that the government is going ahead with a national
infrastructure program in co-operation with the municipalities
and the provinces.
The federal funds were committed in the budget. The government
is negotiating with the provinces to determine how the program
will be conducted.
1400
I urge again that the municipalities play the major role in the
selection of projects which qualify under the program. I also
urge that, where appropriate, colleges and universities be able
to participate, as they did in our first national infrastructure
program.
There is a crisis in the core funding of colleges and
universities across Canada, despite considerable increases in
federal funding. Infrastructure support would help with this
crisis. Colleges and universities are a key part of the
infrastructure of Canada.
* * *
NATIONAL PUBLIC SERVICE WEEK
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
during this National Public Service Week celebrating valuable
contributions that federal public servants make, I was happy to
attend an awards ceremony where the Nunavut team was honoured,
among others.
Public servants from all government departments, plus our
Nunavut organizations who worked so hard in the creation of
Nunavut received an award of excellence for their outstanding
contribution. The award was presented by the President of the
Treasury Board. These hard-working individuals were creative and
dedicated to the creation of Nunavut. Their efforts helped to
change the map of Canada. Helping to create Nunavut is an
achievement they can certainly be proud of.
I also want to take this opportunity to wish all of my
colleagues a good summer. Mutna
* * *
LAURIE THRONESS
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, as you know, it is the opposition's
job to hold the government accountable. We have been doing that
for the last 20 weeks on the HRDC file.
Today I would like to stand in my place and acknowledge the
sterling work of our HRDC researcher, Laurie Throness. MPs look
good mostly because their researchers and assistants help them to
look good. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you can attest to that fact.
We appreciate Laurie's work. He has become an expert in the use
of the Access to Information Act, so much so that the department
is now stonewalling and denying his requests.
Laurie Throness is a dedicated public servant. We appreciate
his work and Canadians owe him a great debt of gratitude for what
he has done.
* * *
[Translation]
MAYOR OF HULL
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
Tuesday, the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements,
Habitat, paid a very special tribute to his honour the mayor of
Hull, Yves Ducharme, appointing him special advisor to the United
Nations.
Mr. Ducharme is the only mayor in North America to sit on the UN
local authorities advisory committee, a body set up by the UN to
consolidate the role and increase the involvement of cities in
the Habitat program.
As the ambassador of the City of Hull to the world, Mr. Ducharme
will thus have the privilege of sharing his expertise on urban
development with the mayors of such cities as Moscow, Barcelona,
Venice and Johannesburg.
I therefore take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Ducharme
on this prestigious appointment and I am sure he will worthily
represent his citizens in providing advice on the challenges and
opportunities in growing urbanization at the dawn of the new
millennium.
* * *
THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, so
our Prime Minister in a speech in Berlin to an international
audience proposed, with a straight face, Liberal compassion as an
example to the world as a whole. History does not say whether
his host, Chancellor Schroeder, managed not to laugh when he
heard this astounding remark. Liberal compassion—mind boggling.
The man who savagely cut benefits to the unemployed, the man
who, despite a unanimous request by the National Assembly,
refuses to discuss extended parental leave for all couples, the
man who is largely responsible for the staggering number of poor
children in Canada, this man dares set himself up as an example
of compassion to the world. What arrogance, in what contempt he
must hold his peers in order to dish out such revolting untruths.
Let us be fair, however. One category of citizen has benefited
from Liberal compassion: the shareholders of our major banks. The
Minister of Finance is giving them tax relief to the tune of $500
million.
Our Prime Minister's compassion is for billionaire companies.
Everything for the rich and as little as possible for the poor.
More of a hypocrite than that is not possible.
* * *
CANADA
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every year,
one of the oldest and most respected NGOs in the area of human
rights, the American Jewish Committee, honours one country for
its contribution to human rights, democracy and the rule of law.
1405
This year, that country is Canada, and the award was presented
to His Excellency, Raymond Chrétien, Canada's ambassador to the
United States, on Monday evening at the Canadian embassy in
Washington.
Canada was selected because of its human security program, its
respect for religious diversity and collective identity, and its
fight against racism and anti-Semitism.
As the guest speaker, and the day before I was to speak here on
Bill C-19, I devoted my speech to the human security program,
focusing on the protection of civilians during armed conflict.
* * *
[English]
THE CANADIAN ALLIANCE
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you, my colleagues in the House and
all Canadians for the opportunity to serve as the Leader of the
Opposition for these last three months. It has been a great
honour, and it has been a great spring.
I want to thank the House of Commons staff also for their
excellent service to us. I also thank my entire staff who have
worked so hard to help me and our whole caucus team.
We have kept the Prime Minister under the glare, shaking in his
boots. He has been running for cover over the billion dollar
boondoggle, backbench revolts and leadership brawls. It must be
a terror to sit on that side of the House these days.
Summer will arrive next week and it is going to get even hotter
for the government. Over 150,000 members of the Canadian
Alliance are going to unite the bright and elect a new leader. I
want to wish our new leader the very best.
We are dedicated to achieving what Canadians want but what
Liberals cannot give—the best economy, the best democracy and
the best society in the best country—the Canadian Alliance.
* * *
MERIDIAN TECHNOLOGIES
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the good news continues for the town of Strathroy as the
doors to the world headquarters of Meridian Technologies were
opened last Saturday.
The new global technology centre is 24,000 square feet of
advanced engineering, planning and program design departments,
serving all of its factories around the world.
The firm's CEO, Paolo Maccario, stated that the new Strathroy
plant is the cradle of knowledge for Meridian worldwide.
The company has six plants around the globe, including one in
Strathroy since 1980, producing a variety of aluminum and
magnesium parts for the auto industry. A seventh plant is
currently under construction.
For a town of 12,000 people, Strathroy certainly has something
to celebrate, as Meridian's new technology centre is just one of
several new factories and expansions that have been announced in
the past year.
This is another outstanding example of global firms recognizing
the qualities of a rural community.
* * *
THE WAVE 94.7 FM
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
jazz enthusiasts in Hamilton are celebrating now that The Wave
94.7 FM has been approved by the CRTC. This new station has
decided to locate on Hamilton Mountain in my riding.
The station is the first in Canada to use the new adult
contemporary or smooth jazz format. The station is going to
spend $25,000 annually to promote and showcase jazz in the
Hamilton area.
It is because of this government's commitment to small business
that The Wave 94.7 FM is able open its doors and provide full
time work for approximately 20 people. These new employees will
have the challenge of building a successful new radio station
from scratch.
I am sure all hon. members will join me in congratulating the
people at The Wave 94.7 FM and wish them a successful launch for
this new station.
* * *
PRIVACY
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this Liberal
government has collected and disseminated private information on
Canadian citizens. This Liberal government takes private income
tax information and gives it to HRDC. It takes sensitive health
care information and records and gives them to HRDC to use
against Canadians. Courtesy of this government, a young woman's
medical history, social insurance number and income tax
information was posted on grocery store bulletin boards.
Who gave Revenue Canada the right to pass out confidential
information, and why can the government misuse this information
while MPs have to get ministerial approval to get public speeches
they have made?
These tactics are something we would expect of a military
regime, not a democracy.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBECERS' FÊTE NATIONALE
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Our love runs deep, in colours bold
And flowers are its language proud
In many forms we let them say
What often is not said aloud
The fleur-de-lys, our flag, flies high
Accomplishments are taking shape,
And as our special day draws nigh,
Ourselves we should congratulate
Bonne fête nationale, Quebecers.
* * *
1410
.CAPS. Jewish Community
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, January
17, 2000 marked the fifth year anniversary the Lubavitcher Rebbe,
Rebbe Menachem M. Schneerson, as head of the Hassidic movement
Chadad Lubavitch and of international Judaism.
[English]
Fifty years is a jubilee, biblically associated with freedom and
redemption; freedom to practise and propagate one's faith and
beliefs, freedom from oppression and freedom from self-imposed
limitations.
[Translation]
The Rebbe's objective was to promote education, and in
particular to inculcate a conscience and a moral ethic based on
the authentic and immortal values of the Bible.
[English]
The Rebbe inspired a generation of leaders who have impacted the
world with over 3,000 educational and outreach institutions
globally, of which over 50 institutions are in Canada.
The Lubavitch community has proclaimed the week of July 1 to 7,
2000 to mark the sixth anniversary of the passing of the
Lubavitch Rebbe, Lubavitch Week in Canada.
* * *
COLIN WHITE AND JON SIM
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the NHL's New Jersey Devils captured hockey's Holy
Grail Saturday, beating Dallas 2 to 1 in overtime in game six of
the Stanley Cup finals. This year's final showcased passion and
excitement for every player who stepped on the ice, and two
players in particular epitomized the very best of that spirit.
Colin White and Jon Sim of New Glasglow, Nova Scotia played big
parts in their team's performance. Colin, a towering defenceman,
and Jon, a fearless banging winger, took regular shifts and were
solid performers in the playoffs.
As teammates in the Pictou County minor hockey system,
particularly with Scott Weeks Triple A Midgets, both Sim and
White acquired the skills and determination that made them
outstanding hockey players and poised young men. Add to that
maturity and class, and they are local and national fan
favourites. Both players won the recognition and praise of many,
including Don Cherry and Ron Maclean, for their play.
With the New Jersey win, Colin's name will be engraved on the
cup, joining Jon's as a result of New Jersey's victory. Adding
to Colin's joy, he is getting married this summer. All expect a
fabulous homecoming for both native sons.
* * *
TREVOR SNYDER
Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to recognize Trevor Snyder, a student athlete at St.
Joseph's Secondary School in Windsor.
Trevor recently celebrated his 18th birthday by winning a gold
medal at the OFSAA track and field championships. His winning
javelin throw of 71.22 metres broke a 34 year old record of 70.12
metres.
I commend Trevor and all of the other local gold medal winners
at the track and field championships for their performances as
student athletes.
* * *
GUN REGISTRY
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the justice minister's political
assets have been saved again. The supreme court upheld her
flawed gun registry.
The minister claims her registry has stopped hundreds of
undesirable characters from obtaining firearms permits.
One of those undesirables was from my riding. He was repeatedly
rejected because his name appeared on too many files where
firearms were involved. The computer did not realize this
applicant was an RCMP corporal and the firearms verifier for his
detachment, hence his name on the firearms files. I know that I
will sleep better knowing the system will not licence an RCMP
officer's sporting rifle.
The minister's outrageously expensive outreach program is
another sham. A quick check of her Internet site found
shopowners and individuals who received cartons of registry files
in the mail from the minister with no explanation as to what was
expected. That is a lot like the heritage minister's flag
fiasco.
The registry budget has skyrocketed and public support has
plummeted. The Canadian public is aware that this whole exercise
is more about saving political face than public safety. The
majority of Canadians say “Just scrap it”.
* * *
[Translation]
.CAPS. Le Baluchon Alternative School
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in France on May 19, at the Carambolimages film
festival, the Basket d'Or trophy was won by a film called “Une
mystérieuse odeur de pin”.
It was produced by an alternative school in Laval, Le Baluchon,
and was judged by an international jury made up of 10,000
children. It won over the next submission by 900 votes.
This adventure, wholly conceived and produced by primary school
pupils, is a wonderful illustration of children's extraordinary
capacity to combine fun, creativity and performance.
I am pleased to extend the congratulations of the Bloc Quebecois
to the young creators of “Une mystérieuse odeur de pin”. I also
wish to congratulate their teacher, Christian Desjardins, for his
excellent guidance and the parents, François Tardif in
particular, for their invaluable support. With their belief in
the genius of childhood, they have contributed to the creation of
a magical project.
To all the Baluchon school team, bravo! We are proud of you
all.
* * *
1415
[English]
ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the performance of the the Minister
responsible for ACOA around Scotia Rainbow was an embarrassment
to not only Canadians but to his own caucus colleagues. He
referred to a petition signed by what is left of the Liberal
Party in Cape Breton, clearly showing that where Scotia Rainbow
is concerned the government has everything to hide.
Let us review Mr. Lafrenière's track record: two companies
bankrupt, one company in receivership, rubber cheques to
employees and others, and environmental disasters in Quebec and
Nova Scotia. The ACOA minister has overlooked this and instead
considered his Liberal connections: a picture with the Prime
Minister, an $8,000 donation to the Liberal Party, and using
company time and staff to assemble lawn signs for Liberal
campaigns. Mr. Lafrenière may be a good Liberal but it appears
he is not a good businessman.
The government should ask for a refund for its dance lessons
because, try as it might, it can no longer do the two step around
Scotia Rainbow.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I got the sense yesterday that a
certain veterans affairs minister was just a little too excited
about answering HRDC questions. He must have already heard about
the cabinet shuffle.
Liberal sources say, though, that the government is finally
admitting defeat and demoting the HRDC minister and dismantling,
or at least masking, the boondoggle of the jobs fund. They also
said, though, that the government is looking for new ways to
spend money on job creation in Quebec.
Are there still any unemployed friends of the Prime Minister in
Shawinigan?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister of human resources has done a great job,
but the sanctimonious opposition is always complaining.
I see that in the riding of
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok it has sold 2,800
memberships, and everybody says that is as phony as a $3 bill.
The Leader of the Opposition is a responsible person in the House
of Commons. When there is such a flagrant abuse of democratic
rights, I hope she will have an inquiry about it and she will
call in the RCMP.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): I think that is a great idea, Mr. Speaker.
Canadians would like to say thanks a billion. Let me refer to
what is a famous quote by now:
—when we form government, every Minister in the Cabinet that I
will be presiding over will have to take full responsibility...If
there is any bungling in the department, nobody will be singled
out. The Minister will have to take the responsibility.
That was this Prime Minister in 1991 when he was sitting right
here. Is that why he is finally getting around to demoting the
HRDC minister?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is because of what I said in those days and because I
kept my word that I moved from there to here.
It is because the member has a reputation of throwing dirt in
the House of Commons about anything, without any consideration
for the reputation of anybody, that she will move out of that
seat very soon.
We will keep defending the programs that have been put in place
by the government to help the poor, the people who need help in
our society.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, let me assure the Prime Minister that
I will be keeping it warm for him. I promise.
The Prime Minister is planning on dismantling HRDC in a
desperate attempt to hide the mess created by the entire
government and the HRDC minister, but it is too little too late.
The government's bungling and boondoggling have caused taxpayers
billions of dollars so far. How in the world would a cabinet
shuffle ever change that?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, they have only one problem. They take this one little
problem and when their leadership was asked to look into what is
obviously a fraud they said they would do nothing.
They have one problem and they cannot handle it. We have
thousands of problems, and we are solving them on this side of
the House.
1420
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today there is a new HRDC fiasco. A
Sault Ste. Marie firm that got nearly $1 million from HRDC over
the last year has now closed its doors.
HRDC says it does not know where the public's $1 million went,
or even whether the company met the terms of the grant. Once
again the minister has been caught asleep at the switch. The
boondoggle just never ends.
This session began with the human resources minister running
away from questions about her competence. Why is it ending the
same way?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to review the facts of
the last six months. I want to remind the House that it was this
government that brought the results of the internal audit
forward, not because anybody told us we had to but because we
believe in openness and transparency.
I want to remind the House that the Department of Human
Resources Development Canada has committed to the Canadian public
that it will fix this problem. If the opposition would just take
the time to see all the changes that have occurred, it would see
that we are true to our word. Finally—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary—Nose
Hill.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, for 20 straight weeks evidence has
mounted of HRDC incompetence in handling literally billions of
public money.
The minister's attempts to convince Canadians that there is
nothing to worry about have failed to square with the facts. The
government may makes some cosmetic changes to try to paper over
the ugly mess at HRDC.
It will just get rid of the jobs fund pork barrel, dismantle the
department and shuffle the minister off to fresh pastures, but
why does it fail to deal with the root problem, which is lack of
respect for taxpayers and their money?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. It is out of absolute
respect for the Canadian public that we chose to tell them that
we had a problem within the department. It is out of respect for
the Canadian public that we stand firm behind their values, that
Canadians will support each other in times of trouble.
The member speaks about cosmetics. I just wonder how big the
cosmetic bag will have to be when they try to explain to the
Canadian public their membership boondoggle.
* * *
[Translation]
PARENTAL LEAVE
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
one of the arguments used by the Prime Minister to refuse to
negotiate parental leave with Quebec is that the federal program
will come into effect on January 1, 2001, and that Quebec
families would lose one year.
But that argument does not make sense. No one is opposed to the
coming into effect of the federal program—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: But there is more. Let us see if they are
going to applaud.
The provincial program will come into effect on January 1, 2002.
This means there a year and a half left to negotiate.
Will the Prime Minister do the right thing, will he think about
the future and negotiate?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is nothing to negotiate. We have a program that will be
implemented and that will benefit Quebecers who want to avail
themselves of that option. Instead of a 6 month period, they will
receive money from the federal government during 12 months.
The provincial government can complement the federal program if
it so wishes. That happened in the past with family allowances.
There were family allowances from the federal government and the
Quebec government of the day added provincial family allowances.
It can do exactly the same thing with parental leave.
1425
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister obviously does not understand the whole
situation, the modern reality of young families. Even The
Montreal Gazette agrees with the Quebec government, something
which rarely happens.
I am asking the Prime Minister to not look at the past, to not
remain frozen in the past. Let historians deal with the past.
Will the Prime Minister think about the future, about young
families and sit down to negotiate in good faith, as he must,
under his own legislation? Will he think about young families,
not his own personal interests and those of his party? That is
all we ask of him.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
a few years ago, we undertook negotiations on this issue with the
Quebec government. Its officials left the negotiating table, so
we acted accordingly.
The federal program is in effect. The money is collected by the
federal government across the country and is distributed in the
same fashion in all the provinces.
If the Quebec government wants to add on to our program, fine.
Nothing prevents it from doing so. Families will then receive
money from the federal government and whatever amount the
provincial government is prepared to give them.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal
government's parental support program is far less advantageous
that that proposed by the Government of Quebec. Ottawa's comes
from the employment insurance program, and is therefore funded
by the contributions of employers and employees.
Why is the Prime Minister, stubborn as he is, acting as if this
were his own money, when it is the money of young families?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the EI fund is contributed to by all workers and all employers
in Canada.
As I said earlier, it is my understanding that the provincial
program they want to put into place requires more contributions
by employers and employees. That is up to them.
We have our program, and if they want one that is more specific,
they can add very easily onto what we are already doing. The
families of Quebec will be very nicely covered, with both the
money from the federal government and the money from the
provincial government. We are going to respect the
jurisdictions of both.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, privately,
the Prime Minister's own colleagues are telling us that they are
interested in seeing the federal program brought in line with
the Quebec one, when it is in place.
Could the Prime Minister commit to agreeing to negotiate with
Quebec and could he state here in this House that the federal
government will agree to join with the Quebec program, once it
is in place, as his colleagues and certain of his ministers
would like him to?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have a program in place. Let them join with ours, and improve
it. They are welcome to do so.
They have our permission. There is no problem. We each have
our own jurisdiction. If they feel our program is not
satisfactory, then let them adjust it. They are responsible for
social programs in Quebec, just as other provinces are
responsible for theirs.
* * *
HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Prime Minister.
It is clear that, for this government, money comes before people
and profits come before quality of life.
Yesterday, we had proof of this again. The Minister for
International Trade stated in committee that trade agreements had
nothing to do with human rights.
Does the Prime Minister agree with his minister's surprising
remarks?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what the minister said and what we are saying is that programs
and economic and trade problems must be negotiated in this
context.
There are other forums for the other issues. We firmly believe
that if we have trade relations with other countries whose
systems are not as good as ours, we are in a better position to
influence them than if we were to completely isolate them . This
is the case with many countries.
We always refer to human rights, but we try to create jobs for
them and for us.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, whether
it is labour, environment or human rights, the government is all
for it as long as there is no teeth and no enforcement. Listen
to what the trade minister said:
Cheap labour is not an asset. It is deprivation.
It is exploitation. It is human misery. Such conditions should
not be applauded; they should be condemned.
1430
Will the Prime Minister agree that labour, the environment and
human rights must be essential elements in any trade deal
involving Canada?
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the
hon. member and all Canadians that the Government of Canada takes
this issue very seriously.
Our goal is to ensure there is a coherent approach with the ILO
on labour, with UNEP on the environment, with the IMF and the
World Bank. We want to get these groups all talking together to
ensure that these issues are in the forefront of the
international agenda.
* * *
[Translation]
PARENTAL LEAVE
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker,
increasingly the spectre of a legal battle between Quebec City
and Ottawa on the question of parental leave is raising its head.
It is not up to the judiciary to decide whether the federal
system is working well, but rather the electorate.
Could the Prime Minister of Canada not follow the example set by
his Minister of Finance, who agreed with his provincial
counterpart and found a common ground they could agree upon, or
should we quickly replace the Prime Minister with his Minister of
Finance?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we gave Quebec the opportunity to negotiate a number of years
back. They left the table. We have a federal program that
applies to all Canadians. I think the people in Quebec are happy
to have a federal government that looks after their social
problems.
Oddly enough, when the federal government wants to do something,
what does the Government of Quebec want? It wants the money from
the federal government so it can distribute it. I think that the
electors are better served when they know that their money is
distributed by the government that collected it.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
specifications for replacement of the Sea King helicopters were
signed off two months ago by DND and then sent to the Minister of
National Defence, who I understand has also signed off and
forwarded them to the Prime Minister's office.
Would the Prime Minister inform the House today what is holding
up the final approval of these specs? Is it because the Prime
Minister does not want to have the Cormorant as part of the
tender process?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my answer is very long. No.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, we all remember René Fugère, the guy who is under police
investigation for being an unregistered lobbyist. We also
remember when René Fugère, the Prime Minister's body double,
worked with the Prime Minister's favourite Shawinigan lawyer, Mr.
Gilles Champagne, to create an illegal trust fund that benefited
a third prime ministerial crony in the Placeteco Inc. deal.
At the conclusion of this session, would the Prime Minister care
to explain once again why HRDC was forced to break the rules that
then benefited his close friends?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we remember that party talking about $3
billion being missing. We remember that party talking about $1
billion being missing. We know now that is not the case at all.
We remember members of that party talking about the fact that
they are not interested in supporting Canadians in need. They
said that through grants and contributions we are wasting
taxpayers' dollars to support young people who want to find
employment, to support Canadians with disabilities, to support
Canadians who want to improve their literacy. We remember that
and so do Canadians.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we really wish the hon. minister
would do more than just remember and actually fix the problems in
her department.
A full one-third of those who donated to the Prime Minister's
personal election campaign ended up getting grants, contributions
or contracts from his government, in other words, from the
taxpayers of Canada. Was that because the other two-thirds just
did not donate enough?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to use this occasion to say how
hypocritical those people are. They have a little problem in
their own party where it is evident that some people are trying
to steal the leadership while they sit there and do nothing.
That is the only problem they have to deal with and they do not
know what to do.
1435
We had problems and we have solved them. That is why at the end
of this session we can say that when we started, unemployment was
at 11.5% and now it is down to 6.6%. When we started, there was
a $42 billion deficit and the Minister of Finance has informed me
that he now has a very big surplus.
* * *
[Translation]
PARENTAL LEAVE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the solution proposed by the Prime
Minister regarding parental leave reflects his vision of Canada.
He is proposing a two-tier system and a duplication of programs
that will only, as evidenced by years of experience in other
areas, generate useless costs and inefficiencies.
Does the Prime Minister not agree that, together, we could
negotiate to use the money contributed and create a simple and
comprehensive program, strictly for the benefit of Quebec's young
families?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have a program that has been working for 30 years. Everyone
was very pleased that, thanks to this government's good
management, we were able to extend the period from 6 to 12
months.
Again, it is very easy for the Premier of Quebec and others to
want to implement good policies with money provided by the
federal government.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister giving us a
demonstration of the inflexibility of Canadian federalism, by
stubbornly refusing to take into account the interest of young
families?
Does he realize that this is all that matters here, now that the
time has come for this government to get along with Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
if they truly care about Quebec families that are not covered by
employment insurance, let them take their responsibilities and
create a new program with their resources.
We have responsibilities toward those who contribute to
employment insurance. We use the money that they put into it to
help these families. If those who are not covered by the
employment insurance have problems, let the Quebec government
assume its responsibilities.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, we all know that last August, HRDC officials were in
full damage control mode over a billion dollar boondoggle audit.
Their communications department had prepared an action plan to
handle the crisis and officials were hunkering down for the
coming storm. The minister was obviously terrified of the
consequences of this audit becoming public.
Was it that fear of the public finding out that prevented the
minister from telling Canadians about the audit for a full six
months after it was completed?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can only be amused that after six
months we are still back where we started.
I can say that again we see unsupported allegations being
repeated and repeated and repeated. Repetition does not make
things true.
If those members would take the time to actually look at the
facts where indeed we made the report public, where we have taken
action to improve the administration of the department and where
we have defended and strengthened grants and contributions in
this country, they would see that things have been done. We have
taken leadership and we are doing the right thing.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know what the minister finds so funny about
missing $1 billion. The Minister of Human Resources Development
waited until two days after we submitted an access to information
request before she announced the existence of the billion dollar
bungle audit. She then tried to postdate the acknowledgement of
our access requests.
Was the minister more ashamed about her billion dollar bungle or
her attempt to cover it up?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that it is the hon.
member who should be embarrassed.
First, here again he reiterates the falsehood that $1
billion is missing. It is not. He reiterates the fact that they
think the access to information request spawned the audit. It
did no such thing. That was discussed in this House many months
ago. Again we see the reiteration of falsehoods and misdirection.
Those members talk about draft reports. If they would take the
time to look at the facts, to see the progress, to see the actual
results of the work, they would understand that things have been
taken into hand and are in much better shape today than they
were.
* * *
1440
[Translation]
FRANCOPHONE ATHLETES
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Secretary of State for Amateur Sport is loudly praising his
exploits as a minister.
Yet the Commissioner of Official Languages has given him a
really poor grade on his report card. She has even told him
that he has a lot of homework to do in order to foster equality
of opportunity for francophone athletes.
Given the relatively short career of athletes, and the fact that
coaches can work for 10 to 20 years, would it not be normal to
require that the latter be bilingual?
Hon. Denis Coderre (Secretary of State (Amateur Sport),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can
understand the hon. member's frustration. Yesterday she was
questioning my credibility and today she is looking for some for
herself.
Clearly, in the past ten months, with all the concrete actions
in which we have been involved, there is one thing I can say:
ask any athlete, regardless of their coach, and they will say
one thing for certain: we are “on the right track”.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
all very fine for the secretary of state to speak to us of
agreements he has signed making knowledge of French a criterion.
It is all very well for him to boast of his work as a minister
but will he admit that these agreements will not be valid unless
an obligation is also in place for trainers and coaches to be
bilingual?
Speaking French must not be just any old criterion but an
obligation.
Hon. Denis Coderre (Secretary of State (Amateur Sport),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity, since we are
finishing today, to extend the best wishes of the Government of
Canada to the Quebec and Canadian athletes who are going to
represent us so well at the next Olympics.
I will be at the opening ceremonies. I have a memorandum of
agreement and everything will be in both official languages.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, now that the scope of the mismanagement in HRDC has
come to light and created the dismantling of the department in
the government's attempt to cover its tracks, my question is,
without HRDC how does the Liberal government plan on financing
its next election campaign?
The Deputy Speaker: That question is beyond the competence
of the government and is out of order.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, René Fugère lobbied for a TJF grant for a hotel in
Shawinigan. Fugère is an unregistered lobbyist being investigated
by the RCMP. Ten days after the first $100,000 was received, the
hotel cut a cheque for $11,500 to Mr. Fugère.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Was October 25, 1993 the
day that kickbacks became acceptable?
The Deputy Speaker: In my view, that question is also out
of order but the hon. government House leader may reply.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, both questions just asked beg
the following answer. In a recent Hill Times article the
member for Prince George—Peace River said that one of the
reasons he supported changing the name of his party to the
Canadian Alliance was that “it seemed to hold out the promise
for more corporate contributions”.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: We can see the difficulty the House
can get into when questions are out of order.
* * *
[Translation]
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
since May 26, disabled youth in Quebec taking part in the
federal opportunities fund for persons with disabilities have
been without jobs.
As a result of the new accountability rules imposed unilaterally
by Human Resources Development Canada, all participants in the
fund's various programs—more than 1,200 people—will lose their
jobs by June 30.
Given the uncertainty in which these 1,200 people find
themselves, what measures does the minister have planned to help
keep them in the labour market, apart from EI?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question gives me the opportunity to
share with the House the importance of the opportunities fund, a
fund that makes sure that Canadians with disabilities have the
chance to get employment opportunities.
1445
If I understand the question properly, the hon. member has
raised the issue about a certain organization in the province of
Quebec before. We continue to work with that organization in
support of disabled Canadians.
Surely, however, she wants to ensure that accountability
structures are appropriate.
* * *
FIREARMS ACT
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today the Supreme Court of
Canada ruled on the reference regarding the Firearms Act.
Can the Minister of Justice tell the House what this decision
means to Canadians?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that today
the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously confirmed the
constitutional validity of the Firearms Act.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly
pleased because this is a victory for all Canadians and it is a
victory for public safety.
We on this side of the House know that the firearms registry and
licensing system enjoys the support of the vast majority of
Canadians.
At this point, I would ask all Canadians who are firearms owners
and users to comply, and in particular, I would ask our friends
in the official opposition—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Surrey Central.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, on November 3, 1999 the HRDC minister said that the
TJF projects had been managed properly, but they were not. She
then said that the TJF projects went through the acceptable
review process, but they did not. She then said that the process
had been fully addressed, but it had not.
Why was the minister so economical with the truth but not with
taxpayers' dollars?
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member for Surrey
Central will recognize that he will not want to get into
discussions about economy with the truth. He might want to
finish putting his question very directly. We will not carry on
in that vein.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, why was the minister not
straightforward with the taxpayers? Why was she trying to
misguide the House at that time?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: I see there are a lot of cases of
foot in mouth disease this afternoon. The question is out of
order as framed. However, there was a question there, and if the
Minister of Human Resources Development wishes to reply she may
do so.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have always tried to be straightforward
in my responses.
Today I would continue to reiterate the fact that the
transitional jobs fund and the Canada jobs fund have created
opportunities for Canadians that would not have otherwise been
there.
I would reiterate the fact that the investments that we make
through our youth programs have made a difference in the lives of
youth, particularly youth at risk.
I would reiterate the fact that we are focused and, together
with our partners, we are making a difference to ensure that
Canadians with disabilities have a chance to participate in what
we know to be one of the greatest economies in recent years and
country with the lowest unemployment levels in—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the audit identifying the HRD fiasco found that 15%
of the projects did not have an application form, a full quarter
did not have a description of what the project entailed, and
eight out of ten had no financial monitoring.
Was it the actual findings within the audit or was it the
minister's bungling of the audit and the fallout later on that
has caused her to be shuffled within the cabinet or perhaps
outside the cabinet?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I know that the opposition is not looking at what is
needed there because it knows it will never have to deal with
this problem.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the environment minister continues to insist that
protecting the drinking water of Canadians is not his business.
We do not believe that and neither do Canadians. Even Liberal
backbenchers, and here I am thinking of the member for Oxford,
have begun to speak out.
The Environmental Protection Act gives the minister the power to
act when the health of Canadians is at risk.
When individuals contact the minister this summer, as surely
they will, about the concerns for safety in their drinking water,
what action is he prepared to take?
1450
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the tragic events at Walkerton should not be used
for crass political advantage.
The member knows that the federal Department of Health, in
conjunction with the ministries of health in the provinces and
the territories, sets the standard for various substances in
water. For E. coli it is zero parts per million.
He also knows that the system of distribution of drinking water
in the province of Ontario is essentially the responsibility of
the municipalities, supervised by the provincial government. If
he wants to have a system where all three levels of government
get in one another's way allowing the—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg North
Centre.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the government seems to have learned nothing from the
lessons of the past.
Its attitude of indifference to tainted water is no different
than its attitude to tainted blood. It cannot even keep its
commitments to the victims of hepatitis C. It has been two
years, two months and twenty days since the government made its
limited compensation offer. To this moment, not a penny has
flowed and victims are getting sicker and weaker and many are
dying.
Since we are almost at Canada Day, a day of national pride, will
the minister undertake to flow the money before July 1?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member knows that it is because of the leadership of this
government that thousands and thousands of people who were
infected with hepatitis C were not required to go through a
decade in court.
We co-ordinated governments across the country to make an offer
to compensate them appropriately. That has now been approved by
the courts and we are now at the point where the courts are going
to supervise the distribution of those moneys.
The member should acknowledge that this government, under the
leadership of the Prime Minister, saved those people years before
the courts.
* * *
GUN REGISTRY
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, as the Liberal election readiness team gears up and
the cabinet shuffle demons rear their heads, the justice minister
plans to announce a reduction in gun registration fees.
That is a nice gesture, but it will create further confusion for
those who have already paid. Add to this, the list of spiralling
costs, huge rates of error, low participation and a backlogged
system, and the justice minister is going to revel in her supreme
court slap on the provinces and the territories.
Perhaps she could explain to Canadians in simple terms just how
this expensive, ineffective registry system will protect
Canadians.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that the vast
majority of Canadians get it, this side of the House gets it, the
Supreme Court of Canada seems to get it but the member opposite
does not get it.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It is very difficult
to hear the reply of the minister. I know she is struggling
against a lot of noise at the far end of the Chamber that is
almost out of my hearing, but I cannot hear her. The hon. the
Minister of Justice has the floor.
Hon. Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the
supreme court unanimously confirmed today, our Firearms Act is
about public safety.
Canadians support this legislation because they know it is about
public safety. Therefore, I would encourage everyone in the
House, in particular the hon. member, to encourage Canadians
wherever they live to comply with this law.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
While the Prime Minister was in New Brunswick last week, he
confirmed that the reason why there are only three Liberal seats
left in the province is because of the negative impact of the
cuts to the EI program.
Now that the Prime Minister has realized his mistake, when will
he instruct his ministers to rectify the unfairness caused by the
EI reform toward workers dependent on the seasonal industry? I
ask the Prime Minister to give an answer to the people of New
Brunswick.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, during my visit I found out that we will win a lot of
seats next time. I am sorry for the member who may not be back
as the member from Beauséjour.
We have had to deal with some very difficult problems in
Atlantic Canada and we are working on a strategy. I am sure the
member will be pleased with that and may want to become a Liberal
after that.
* * *
1455
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, for nearly 10 years Canada has participated in
military and economic sanctions against Iraq. These sanctions
have had little impact on Saddam Hussein's regime but they have
devastated the civilian population.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, as a member of the United Nations Security Council will
Canada lead the fight to finally end these destructive economic
sanctions?
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when Canada joined the
Security Council in January 1999 we immediately raised concerns
about the humanitarian conditions in Iraq. We facilitated the
setting up of panels to study the conditions in Iraq and we
re-opened the resolutions.
In April, Canada commissioned a study and set up a task force to
investigate how sanctions could be better targeted. Recently in
Ottawa the executive director of UNICEF said that it was not just
sanctions but the government of Iraq that was responsible for the
suffering of the children.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the human resources minister
sticks to her improbable claim that she was not briefed about the
billion dollar bungle until November 17.
If we are to suspend this belief just for a moment and take her
at her word, could the Prime Minister explain why she then blew
another $3 million on the same broken programs within weeks after
the briefing? Why did the people's money keep flowing? Who was
being paid off?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will want to withdraw
any allegations of paying off people. I think he recognizes that
is improper. I would invite him to withdraw those words.
Mr. Paul Forseth: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw those
words, but I would like an answer to the substance of the
question.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with the House some
words on the Canadian Alliance website. Their lead page starts
like this:
Throughout most of the last century the Government of Canada was
dominated by the Liberal Party. Particularly throughout the
1990s the people of Canada saw no viable, electable alternative.
I would like to say that after six months of attacking my
department, the Canadian Alliance has proved two things: first,
that this government is prepared to take administrative issues
seriously because we are accountable; and two, that it does not
believe that investing in Canadians is the right thing to do.
That party sees it as a waste.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with respect
to the Placeteco affair, the Minister of Human Resources
Development solemnly declared here in the House that she had paid
the $1.2 million grant to Placeteco upon receipt of invoices.
But despite our repeated requests, we have still not received
copies of any invoices, whether through access to information or
through the minister herself.
Is the government not ashamed of its behaviour in the Placeteco
affair and of its defence that it paid $1.2 million based on
invoices that we know do not exist?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think it has been agreed that the
appropriate way to access those invoices is through the access to
information process. The opposition understands, as everyone
does, that this is an arm's length undertaking. I can confirm
that any information that can be made available, will be made
available as time permits.
* * *
SCOTIA RAINBOW
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, for five months questions have been asked about this
government's involvement with Scotia Rainbow. The HRDC minister
passed the buck to the ACOA minister. The ACOA minister does a
sloppy Liberal two-step around questions regarding Scotia
Rainbow.
Given these ministers' inability to answer any of these
questions, will the Prime Minister do what his ministers cannot?
Will he tell us today why it is that businesses with bad track
records can access public funds as long as they have a picture of
themselves with the Prime Minister in one pocket and a Liberal
Party donation receipt in the other?
1500
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the total amount of money given by the
federal government to this project was one-fifth of that given by
the chartered banks, one-quarter of the equity put in by the
financiers, and one-half of what was put in by the provincial
government.
The federal government involvement was just a whisker, just a
whit, just a tittle of what the other agencies put in.
* * *
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In spite
of the fact that the minister is getting warnings from
fisherpersons, the few scientists he has left and people in the
industry about the state of the northern shrimp stock, how can he
justify a new entrant when it flies in the face of all sensible
advice from the industry, in the face of opposition from the
premier and the fisheries minister of Newfoundland, and in the
face of common sense?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in any fishing plan, particularly
in the shrimp managing plan for this year, conservation is our
priority. I want to assure the hon. member of that.
Of course, we also respect the adjacency principle. That is why
70% of the harvesting will be done by the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador. This is the same as in 1999.
The peoples who will be involved who were not involved before
include the Innu nation of Labrador, who have been trying to get
access to the resource for many years, the province of P.E.I.,
which has never had any access compared to others, as well as the
Fogo Island co-op. That is reasonable.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
recently the President of the Hellenic Republic visited Canada at
the invitation of our government.
During his very successful visit the President discussed the
Cyprus issue with both the Prime Minister and the Minister of
Foreign Affairs.
Given the upcoming round of proximity talks in July, can the
Minister of Foreign Affairs reiterate this government's position
and tell us what we are doing to help secure a prosperous future
and enduring peace for the people of Cyprus?
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada supports the UN
Security Council resolution calling for the establishment of a
bizonal, bicommunal federation on Cyprus.
Canada joined with the other G-8 members at last year's Cologne
summit to invite the leaders of the two parties to comprehensive
negotiations. We have advanced a de-mining initiative to the
parties and offered to provide constitutional expertise. Canada
is open to provide any other assistance it can to help resolve
this longstanding question.
The G-8 has Cyprus on its agenda and will be closely monitoring
developments in Geneva.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, inquiring minds want to know what the minister has
planned for the rest of the day, and I would like to wish him a
reasonably good summer and a good rest because I think that when
we come back in the fall, in whatever fashion, it could be kind
of a heated little race on to the next stage of political life.
Could he let us know, when we come back on September 18, what
would be the first order of business? What is the number one
priority of the government?
1505
[Translation]
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will not dwell at length on all
the bills under consideration, largely because of the House's
productivity in recent weeks, which is thanks to the co-operation
of all parties.
This evening, when we deal with the supply bill, we will have
concluded all the work on the agenda for this session.
[English]
Let me take this opportunity to thank all hon. members for their
constructive approach in recent days which has produced the
results that make it such that the House will be adjourning later
today for the summer recess.
In particular, I want to pay tribute to all House leaders and
whips of all parties in the House. Their contribution toward
parliamentary democracy, notwithstanding our disagreements from
time to time on policy issues, has been immense. I think that
this is the kind of collaboration the Canadian people expect of
all of us in this House.
If I were to address a short list of some of the bills to be
addressed in the House, and not necessarily in the appropriate
order, I would have to say: Bill C-14, respecting Manitoba
claims; Bill C-8, respecting marine parks; Bill C-3, respecting
youth justice; the bank bill; Bill C-31, respecting immigration;
and Bill C-33, respecting species at risk. Those issues are all
priorities for the government, and so of course will be the
concerns that Canadians will bring to our attention this summer.
All these things will be the subject of the immediate
attention of the government when we return in the fall.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I have a supplementary question for the government House leader.
I think I remember asking the government House leader about a
year ago when legislation would be forthcoming to deal with the
multiplicity of reproductive technologies that are available. He
said at that time that something would be forthcoming. It is now
many months later. Perhaps he could address that matter.
While I am on my feet, could he give us the assurance that after
the House adjourns the Prime Minister will not be making a raft
of appointments to the other place for various Liberal hacks and
flacks that are needed to accomplish the government's agenda
there?
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the second
question first. It is certainly my hope that the Prime Minister,
as I am sure he will, will fulfil his constitutional
responsibility in ensuring that there are members to serve
adequately and very well in the other House. I am certainly very
confident that he will do so, but I will take the hon. member's
suggestion as representation to ensure that the other House has a
full complement of able Canadians to serve this country.
On the second point, there is not a bill on reproductive
technologies presently on the order paper. The hon. member
opposite will recognize that. I will discuss the issue with the
Minister of Justice, the Minister of Health and others in an
effort to bring such legislation to the floor of the House as
soon as possible.
* * *
100TH BIRTHDAY GREETINGS TO THE QUEEN MOTHER
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I move:
That as we will not be in the House of Commons on August 4, that
the Speaker send an address to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the
Queen Mother expressing the heartiest good wishes and
congratulations of all members of the House of Commons on the
occasion of her 100th birthday.
Mr. Speaker, we have a very special way in Canada of wishing
people a very happy birthday, and it goes like this.
[Editor's Note: Members sang Happy Birthday to the Queen
Mother]
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for Saint John
have the unanimous consent of the House 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)
1510
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the House will forgive me if I do not sing. In fact, hon.
members may thank me.
I would certainly like to make it clear that my colleagues and I
in the New Democratic Party join with other members of the House
in expressing best wishes to the Queen Mother on her 100th
birthday.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, having been born on August 4, the Queen Mother's
birthday, I want to thank the hon. member for Saint John for such
a rousing rendition of wishing me a happy birthday along with the
Queen Mother.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure that all hon. members join
the hon. member for Saint John in that expression of good wishes.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I was born on July 1, which was
Dominion Day back in the good old days when I was born. Of
course, we celebrated the fact that we were the Dominion of
Canada. We have the Scripture verse on the Peace Tower here that
says “He shall have dominion from sea to sea”. That is an
exciting part of history for me.
In our family we have loved the Queen Mom and we want to wish
her a wonderful happy birthday on August 4.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Government of
Canada, I want to join in the expression of good wishes made
earlier this day by the hon. member for Saint John in wishing Her
Majesty the Queen Mother our very best wishes on her upcoming
100th birthday.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous
consent of the House to revert to petitions under Routine
Proceedings.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
PETITIONS
OLDER WORKERS ASSISTANCE
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to table a petition containing 118 signatures. As union
leaders, these petitioners represent 4,951 workers.
The petition reads as follows “In view of the many job losses in
pulp and paper plants, already announced or still to come, the
government should be developing financial assistance measures
for older workers, such as the POWA program, in order to help
these workers leave their jobs so that workers with less
seniority can keep working, and job losses can be offset”.
[English]
TRADE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
since we have this unexpected opportunity, courtesy of the
unanimous consent of the House, to present petitions, I would
like to present a great many petitions. The petitions are very
similar to ones I have been presenting for a number of years
having to do with the WTO.
The petitioners call upon parliament to secure binding and
enforceable rules to protect human rights, core labour standards,
cultural diversity and the environment before Canada negotiates
any new trade and investment rules at the WTO or any other trade
forum. They insist that health care, education and culture be
completely carved out of WTO agreements. They refuse to accept
any trade rules of the WTO that would include an investor state
mechanism which would allow global corporations to sue and
intimidate democratically elected governments, and they call for
the elimination of this mechanism from the NAFTA.
The petitioners also want to reform the WTO to make it a much
more open, inclusive and democratic organization.
Finally, they call for work to be done to build an alternative
model of globalization, one designed to help citizens in Canada
and around the world to achieve a stable rules based global
economy that would protect the rights of workers and—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I hesitate to
interrupt the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona, but the
presentation of petitions is to be based on a succinct
explanation of the petition. With all respect to the hon.
member, this explanation is not succinct. It may have other
virtues. I know the hon. member would want to comply with the
rules.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: I would, Mr. Speaker, and for that
reason I would just utter the last several words of the petition:
“and ensure the ability of governments to act in the public
interest”.
THE QUEEN'S OWN CAMERON HIGHLANDERS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I have another petition, an entirely different one, which calls
on parliament to reject the plan of the Department of National
Defence to abolish the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders of Canada
or to amalgamate them with another militia regiment.
These petitioners from Winnipeg believe that Manitoba's only
highland regiment should be retained.
They believe that the Camerons are useful to all citizens of
Manitoba. They believe that a strong militia is the basis upon
which capable national defence is built.
1515
THE SENATE
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition to present which is signed by a number
of people from across the prairies.
The petitioners are calling upon the House of Commons to abolish
the unelected Senate. They are saying that the Senate is
undemocratic. It is not elected. It is not accountable. It
actually costs taxpayers some $50 million a year. It is now
redundant. It undermines the role of members of parliament.
They say we need to modernize our political and parliamentary
institutions, and because of that they say we should begin the
process of the abolition of the undemocratic Senate.
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to table two petitions signed by 588 people who are calling
on this House and on parliament to quickly pass legislation
making it mandatory to label all foods that are wholly or
partially genetically modified.
IMPORTATION OF PLUTONIUM
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): I have two other
petitions calling on this House and on parliament to take all
necessary action so that Canadians and their representatives are
consulted on the principles of importing MOX plutonium.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
There have been consultations and if you would seek it I would
hope you would find unanimous consent for the following motion
dealing with the tabling of committee reports: Provided that on
any day prior to June 30, 2000, if the Standing Committee on
Natural Resources and Government Operations has a report ready
for presentation in the House, the said report may be deposited
with the Clerk of the House and shall be thereupon deemed tabled
in the House.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary
have unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order arising out of question period and
arising out of many other question periods.
I would like to ask the Chair to take some time over the summer
to reflect on the advisability of a practice which has grown up
in question period of the Chair ruling or observing that
questions are out of order and then asking ministers of the crown
whether or not they would then like to answer the questions that
are out of order.
If the Chair rules a question out of order, it seems to me that
should be the end of the matter. It is not a question of the
question being out of order and answering it anyway, or he may
answer it anyway. It puts the minister on the spot. If the
question is out of order, if it is so ruled, that should be the
end of the matter. The time of the House should not be consumed
with ministers answering questions that have been ruled out of
order.
I would ask the Chair to consider that matter over the summer.
Perhaps a new practice, depending on what conclusions the Chair
arrives at over the summer, might be implemented in the fall.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I noticed the same
thing as the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona. I also noticed
that on the first question the Speaker ruled out of order the
Prime Minister was signalling to the House leader of the
government to answer it. The Speaker did not allow an answer at
that point.
On the second question ruled out of order, the House leader for
the government was on his feet, very anxious to answer the
question. I do not think that it was a discretion of the Speaker
at all. It was a matter of the minister asking for an
opportunity to answer the question.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona raises a point that obviously has been of
some concern to the Chair on occasions in the past. As the hon.
member knows, it is not that often that the Deputy Speaker is in
the chair for question period, so I do not normally have to deal
with this matter. On Fridays members are so well behaved that I
very seldom have to rule a question out of order.
However, today, as the hon. member for Wetaskiwin has pointed
out, on one occasion the question in my view was beyond the
competence of the government and I did not permit an answer. In
my view it was an improper question and should not have been
asked.
On the other two questions that I thought were out of order,
they were out of order because of the language in the questions
and not because of the content. In those cases I allowed the
government to respond, particularly in the one case where the
minister exhibited considerable enthusiasm for responding, not
just to the one that was out of order but to the second one which
was out of order because of in my view the language.
That is why I permitted a response.
1520
I am happy to contemplate this matter in the summer. I know I
will spend many nights lying awake thinking about what to do the
next time I get one of these questions.
An hon. member: Only you would.
The Deputy Speaker: As the hon. member says, only I
would. I suspect there may be others who would do the same. I
suspect he may be one of them. I know he will have more advice
for the Chair on other occasions, and I appreciate the advice. I
know my fellow chair occupants appreciate the advice of all hon.
members on these difficult questions.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. I am asking you to rule
on whether MPs may have been wilfully deceived by the Department
of Justice because of a document received on MPs' desks just
prior to the June 6 vote on Bill C-206, which falsely attributed
to the privacy commissioner the expressed concern that opening up
30 year old records would make vulnerable to disclosure personal
information, including income tax returns, unemployment insurance
records, charitable and political donations, and income
investment information.
While this document emanated from government, the comments on
the privacy commissioner's position can be traced to a justice
department talking points document to cabinet of May 26, which
reported that the privacy commissioner considered Bill C-206 to
be a “serious threat to the privacy of Canadians” and cited as
an example the release of “personal income tax returns which
would include information on dependants, charitable and political
donations, not to mention income investments and so on”.
The problem is the privacy commissioner was not in official
communication with the Department of Justice on Bill C-206 until
10 days after the May 26 memo outlining his position and never
described his concerns as a “serious threat” nor ever gave the
example cited in the document above.
At issue here is whether it is a breach of privilege if the
officials of a ministry are found to have given advice to MPs,
both the government and MPs in their places in the House, that
negatively characterizes legislation based on statements,
expressed and implied, that were improperly attributed to an
officer of parliament.
I have a number of documents which I wish to table for your
examination. The first we will call exhibit A. It was found on
every MPs desk at the commencement of the vote on Bill C-206 and
comprises 14 pages in English and French consisting of three
documents: a one page excerpt from the privacy commissioner's
1999-2000 report mentioning Bill C-264, the predecessor of Bill
C-206; a letter dated June 5 from the privacy commissioner to the
justice minister outlining his concerns with respect to Bill
C-206; and a covering two page government note entitled “Summary
of Bill C-206”.
You will note that the letter to the justice minister is dated
June 5. The vote took place in the evening of June 6. Thus it
could not have been received by the justice minister much earlier
than 24 hours before. Also, and very importantly, the privacy
commissioner assures me that this letter is the only official
exchange of correspondence between him and the justice minister
or between his office and the justice ministry pertaining to Bill
C-206. We need look no further for the sum total of the privacy
commissioner's position on Bill C-206.
I might also say the sponsor of Bill C-206, which was myself,
put no document on MPs' desks, relying on his colleagues to know
the bill through the debate that occurred in the House and by
letters he had sent to their offices. That is a point you might
also wish to contemplate.
The paragraph in the government covering letter that I wish to
draw to your attention is that subtitled “Privacy Concerns”
which then attributes to the privacy commissioner the concern
that making 30 year old records accessible could result in the
potential release of personal information. Privacy commissioner
and personal records are boldfaced for emphasis.
Then it goes on to give examples of personal information that
because of the 30 year provision would be “vulnerable”: income
tax returns, unemployment insurance records, charitable and
political donations, and income investment information.
These examples had a tremendously damaging impact on opinion of
the bill. Two MPs, the member for Carleton—Gloucester and the
member for Broadview—Greenwood, told me afterwards that the
examples influenced them to vote against the bill. I am sure
many other MPs likewise reacted and may have voted accordingly,
but nowhere in any official communication from the privacy
commissioner will you find reference to a concern linking the 30
year provision to tax returns, unemployment insurance records,
political donations and income investment information.
Moreover, the privacy commissioner has assured me that he has
never personally used these examples, period. Indeed well he
would not. The political donations of individuals are already
readily available from the Elections Canada website.
1525
It turns out, however, that the damaging examples in this
document that was put on MPs' desks have a history. I refer now
to exhibit B. This is a justice department's talking points memo
to cabinet dated May 26 which says that, and I give you the
entire sentence, “The privacy commissioner believes Bill C-206
is a serious threat to privacy”. That is the exact quotation.
The privacy commissioner assures me that although he takes all
issues of privacy seriously, neither he nor his staff has ever
said that Bill C-206 is a serious threat to privacy. Indeed, if
you examine his letter of June 5 you will find that he says that
his “greatest concerns can be met with by amendments” and that
he is looking forward to “outlining his concerns to the
appropriate committee”.
I should say that it is directly the privacy commissioner's
mandate to consider all legislation that gets on the order of
precedence for its Privacy Act implications. He expresses
concerns on legislation all the time, and those concerns are
supposed to be dealt with as the legislation makes its way
through committee and report stage.
Further in these talking points to cabinet which were shared
with some MPs, which is how I got this document, you will see the
statement that the privacy commissioner believes “For example,
the release of personal income tax returns would include
information on dependants, charitable and political donations,
not to mention income investments and so on”.
The privacy commissioner assures me he did not say that, and yet
three days after the date of these talking points the sponsor of
Bill C-206, that is myself, was summoned before the Deputy Prime
Minister, the justice minister, the treasury board president and
the government House leader and for the first time asked to
account for the fact that the privacy commissioner says that Bill
C-206 is going to open up personal income tax forms, personal
investments and so on more than 30 years old.
Despite my thorough knowledge of the bill and despite my
explanations, how could I make convincing argument against the
supposed word of the privacy commissioner expressed in a document
that was not then shared with me?
Two days later the government announced to the Liberal caucus
that it was not supporting Bill C-206. Then, for the next four
days before the vote, the whip and cabinet ministers directly
approached backbench MPs and told them not to vote for Bill C-206
while citing the privacy commissioner's alleged beliefs reported
in the justice department talking points of May 26.
However the privacy commissioner's actual, official, written
position on Bill C-206 was only received by the justice
department at most late in the afternoon the day before the vote
and two days after the government began whipping the backbench to
vote against it.
When I raised these issues with the privacy commissioner he
recalled that there may have been informal talks between his
staff and justice department staff. He later informed me that on
inquiry he had learned that such talks had occurred in October
1999 and that issues related to income tax returns and other
types of personal information had been discussed. The privacy
commissioner was not at those talks, and they were of so informal
a nature that no record of them was taken by privacy commission
staff.
I asked the privacy commissioner if such talks by his staff,
which occur from time to time on various items of legislation,
could be or should be construed as being his opinion. The
privacy commissioner replied, and I give the House his exact
words, “If it is not under my signature and seal I did not say
it”.
There you have it, Mr. Speaker. Documents from the justice
department which falsely purported to reflect the privacy
commissioner's stated position on Bill C-206 came before the
government and MPs in the House and probably affected a vote that
was before the House. I believe that this constitutes a prima
facie case of privilege.
1530
The Deputy Speaker: I want to thank the hon. member for
Wentworth—Burlington for raising this question of privilege. I
will certainly review the documents that he has presented with
his argument. It may be that a member of the government will
wish to respond at a later date to the allegations that are
contained in the documents that he will be tabling. If that is
the case, I will certainly be prepared to hear those arguments
before rendering a decision on the question that he has raised. I
will take the matter under advisement at this time.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was not present but I understand,
and I stand to be corrected if I am in error, that my colleague
may have charged that as the chief government whip I would have
lobbied or given instructions to government members on how to
vote on a private member's bill under his signature. If that is
the correct interpretation, I want to unequivocally deny such an
accusation in this instance or in any other instance affecting
Private Members' Business.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair may be wrong but I do
not think that was the nature of the allegation.
There are documents that were referred to by the hon. member for
Wentworth—Burlington which I think he alleged were the ones that
were used to influence the thinking of members of parliament. I
do not recall from anything I have heard him say that any of
those documents emanated from the chief government whip.
As I said, I think it is appropriate that we review the
documents. I know the chief government whip may want to look at
them as well, but I think a member of the government may wish to
respond to this. We will give time for that to happen.
We will take the matter under advisement at this time and we
will deal with it when there is some indication of the
availability of a response and when we have had an opportunity to
review the documents that have been presented.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—HEALTH CARE
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. colleague's speech
on health care. As we all know, the quality of health care
really went downhill when the Liberal government made all the
cuts back in the early 1990s. Would the hon. member accept
responsibility for all the cuts that were made to the health care
system which created the situation that exists today?
Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the
House accept the responsibility of fixing a system that needs to
be enforced. We ask for co-operation from all colleagues in this
House to take the politics out of health care and to fix the
situation.
This gives me an opportunity to thank the people of the
beautiful town of Chesterville for their hospitality this past
Monday. Chesterville is in the beautiful riding of
Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh where the government announced
the investment of $50 million into the innovation fund for rural
and community health and an additional $11 million for the
projects under telehealth. This is so very important.
Telemedicine is necessary to help fix the situation with respect
to health care in rural and remote communities.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we have had much debate today on
health care, the subject of the official opposition supply day
motion.
I would like to ask the hon. member for
Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington about health in a more
general way. It relates to the fact that when people think about
medicare and health care services, most often they are thinking
about physical health, but in actual fact what has happened in
Canada has been a tragedy in terms of mental health care
services.
1535
There has been a shrinkage of resources. What the provinces
have been able to secure from the federal government, if there
has been a prioritization, it has been away from mental health care
services. There have been some very tragic examples recently of
what has happened. People with obvious and known to themselves
mental health problems have been crying out for help but have not
been able to receive it. Consequently they have carried out
criminal acts.
Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Speaker, I have something of
interest for the member's riding.
There was an announcement made on Monday this week about rural
Canada. It would certainly apply to beautiful Vancouver Island.
A new system has been set up to deliver an ultrasound service
into northern Alberta, probably about three hours north of
Edmonton. The technology is now available to transfer the
ultrasound images from the town via satellite, across the Equator
and back into the clinic in Calgary.
We sat in Chesterville and all Canadians were able to watch the
ultrasound images being transferred. A doctor who specializes in
interpreting these images received them and sent them back to the
doctor in the home town. It saved the patient travel time of
three and a half hours to have the ultrasound tests conducted.
Also, in front of Canada and with television coverage, an hon.
member of this House said everyone wanted to know if it was a boy
or a girl, but someone in northern Alberta said the mom and dad
did not want to know. We all have to work together to address
health care.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby.
I am pleased to speak to the health crisis in Canada. I want to
speak from the Manitoba perspective. Having actively been
involved with this issue for many years in Manitoba, I can
certainly tell the House that Manitobans are not happy campers
when it comes to their health care services.
The cuts from the federal government have had a huge impact on
all the people of Manitoba. The whole health care system in
Manitoba had to be reconfigured to deal with the drastic cuts the
government made to the tune of about $24 billion in the early
1990s.
It forced the provincial government to centralize the health
system. It is sad that this was forced upon the Gary Filmon
government. Unfortunately it may have been one of the factors
that cost him the last election because people are still angry
about the health care delivery system in the province of
Manitoba. As a result we now have a number of regional health
authorities who are unelected and appointed by politicians. It
is another political game which we have to put up with.
What did I do about this, going back six or seven years? At
that time I organized a provincial health meeting with municipal
and aboriginal leaders to deal with the health crisis. We had a
forum on health. We asked the then Manitoba minister of health,
Darren Praznik, to appear before the angry delegates and he did.
He found himself in a very difficult situation. He had been
appointed to that position about a month prior to the meeting.
Unfortunately all the municipal and aboriginal leaders attacked
the province of Manitoba and blamed it for the problem, which in
essence was wrong.
I can see with 20:20 vision in hindsight that the blame should
have been put squarely on the federal government. In fact, no
one even wanted to hear that the problem was created by the
federal government. Can you believe that, Mr. Speaker? We still
need to place the blame on the government that created this
problem in the first place, the federal government.
1540
Today the problem still exists. People are still not happy with
the system that is currently in place. There are still long
waiting lines. There are still shortages of beds. There are
overcrowded clinics. Doctors are overworked. In other words, we
need to remind Canadians how this big problem started in the
first place. It all started with the big cuts at the federal
level.
I would like to talk about a client central health care system
that exists in my riding of Dauphin—Swan River, the Hamiota
District Health Centre. It has been around for at least 50
years.
How do we measure the health of a community? Do we look at the
number of medical office visits and days of hospital care and
assume that greater activity indicates better health? Or is the
reverse true? Current priorities in Canada's health care system
are contested by community health centres which nurture health as
a positive attribute to be protected, restored and enhanced.
Medical health centres are not new. Most of the dozen or so in
Manitoba are unique in scope, ranging from a single specialized
service to the Hamiota District Health Centre, the classic
example of a comprehensive integrated centre. Located in
southwestern Manitoba, the HDHC has been around since 1974. It
provides a broad range of services geared to community needs,
limited only by available means.
I would like to pay tribute to Dr. Ed Hudson who in 1945 took
over his father's practice in Hamiota. His father, Dr. E.D.
Hudson, began his practice in 1907. Dr. Ed Hudson is still
actively involved in helping to deliver quality health care.
Between his horses and the health centre, he certainly keeps busy
in his senior years.
The Hamiota District Health Centre began with a belief in the
health centre potential for improved quality of care. The
providers of that care know the satisfaction of delivering care
programs that are effective but definitive assessment is
difficult. An evaluation concentrating on results of programs is
limited in scope.
The 1972 white paper on health policy states, “a health system
must also be judged by the numbers of people who in fact never
succumb to disease or accidents or social distress”. A method
of measuring quality of care is elusive.
Cost saving efficiencies were envisaged. There is the
co-ordination of care by many disciplines, resulting in decreased
numbers of diagnostic tests, the pooling of supplies and
equipment, and more efficient use of physical facilities. There
is the ability to use the most appropriate care provider in
patient care and the appropriate level of care for the patient.
There is the freeing of physicians to use their time and
expertise more efficiently in preventive care and health
promotion to reduce hospital stays. There is the use of home
care, mobile meals and support services to reduce hospital
patient days. There is the economy of using only one
administration and one governing board in an expanded system of
care. There is the active involvement of the community in
establishing support for the programs and identifying needs.
Thirty years of experience seems to support all these tenets.
Controlled spending has to date precluded any unapproved deficits
that would become the responsibility of the municipalities of the
district.
The centre lacks the information and statistics required to do a
self-evaluation or a comparative one, but has co-operated with
governments in several assessment surveys and questionnaires.
Results of research, if any do exist, have never been publicized.
Quite apart from statistics but evident to a visitor to HDHC is
an atmosphere no one had predicted. Staff morale is exceptional.
1545
The current position is to devote half a day per month to a
strategy meeting to critically assess the role in terms of
efficiency, effectiveness and goals. It is expected that gains
in health care in the next decade will be in preventive care,
with emphasis on nutrition, health promotion, physiotherapy and
occupational therapy, as resources are geared to keeping people
well.
The expansion of existing programs or the introduction of new
ones in times of fiscal restraint are largely matters of
trade-off between priorities. The flexibility of the system is
conducive to change to improve care and to respond to community
needs.
Turn of the century health care in rural Manitoba was delivered
by the dedicated and selfless family medical doctor. As the
century closes we find a burgeoning multiplicity of health
disciplines in a tangled web of administration by government
departments, subsidized public offices and private agencies. The
system has grown without plan or co-ordination in an expensive
add-on fashion which encourages health care professionals to
concentrate on protecting the turf of their own specialty,
competing for limited resources and denying any vision of total
care.
One health worker suggests “I am sure if I were to start all
over again in health care there would be no doubt as to the
direction it would take. Interdisciplinary health care
management would be the only way to go”.
Wishful thinking, you say, Mr. Speaker? Perhaps, but this small
community in Hamiota, Manitoba, has found it to be possible. I
would invite hon. members, if they have the time this summer, to
visit this place to see how client-centered health care takes
place.
I would like to close by quoting from a letter that was sent to
me from the Council of Chairs of the Regional Health Authorities
of Manitoba. The letter reads in part:
Every day, members of the RHAM see the serious effects that cuts
in federal transfers are having on our national healthcare
system. The significant decline of public confidence in our
healthcare system is compelling evidence that Canadians feel the
system will not be there for them and their families when they
need it. Federal/provincial/territorial co-operation to build a
truly accessible, integrated, client-centered continuum of care
is essential to restore the confidence of all Canadians in our
health care system.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member aware of the increase in spending
through the CHST, the Canada health and social transfer, to $11.5
billion in the previous budget? As well, the last budget
increased spending by an additional $2.5 billion, for a total of
$14 billion over a period of about five years. Is he aware of
that? Does he not consider that to be significant spending for
health?
Lastly, I would like to ask the member if he is in favour of
private health care for profit, yes or no? If not, does he
support the privatization bill in Alberta which could lead to the
very situation of a two tier health care system in the future?
Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Speaker, our health critic indicated
this morning in his speech that we are not in favour of a two
tier health system. We have said that over and over again. I do
not know why the member opposite keeps asking the same question
about a two tier, American-style health care system. We are
opposed to that.
I agree that we need to put money back into the system. The
Liberal government indicated in its budget that over five years
it will put money back into it, but it seems to have forgotten
that it took out more than $24 billion. That is what I said in
my speech.
Many of the problems we have today stem from the day when the
government made that huge cut. I do not blame the government for
all of the problems that exist, because there are increasing
demands on the system, but certainly that is what started the
problems and the crisis we have today.
1550
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I only have 10 minutes to
speak to the motion of my caucus, the Canadian Alliance, which
states:
That this House recognize that the health care system in Canada
is in crisis, the status quo is not an option, and the system
that we have today is not sustainable; and, accordingly, that
this House call upon the government to develop a plan to
modernize the Canadian health care system, and to work with the
provinces to encourage positive co-operative relations.
I cannot cover the scope of the problem at this time, but I can
briefly say that we must first understand that medicare is the
constitutional responsibility of the provinces. The federal
government, through the Canada Health Act, controls a declining
portion of the funding in exchange for the famous five
principles.
As predicted at the start of medicare, the principles have been
abandoned by all governments, yet the hollow phrases are fought
over for the political advantage of posturing before the public
about what party or government is more caring, wiser, and
therefore should be trusted and supported by the voters.
The principles are: accessibility, portability, universality,
comprehensiveness, and public administration. However, we must
look at the five principles of the Canada Health Act and question
if they are working.
Concerning accessibility, in the nineties there was an increase
in people waiting for care. In 1993 the average wait was 9.3
weeks, but in 1998 the average wait was 13.3 weeks, an increase
of 43%. Patients wait months to see a specialist. There is a
huge shortage of technology that is available in other countries
but is spread thinly in Canada. People are dying because they
cannot get timely access, or they suffer needlessly.
What about portability? This supposedly means that every
Canadian has the right to be treated anywhere in Canada.
However, Quebec patients outside Quebec are required to pay
upfront because the Quebec government did not sign the
portability agreement and cannot be counted on to pay up.
I am told the reverse is even worse, about a person from B.C.
who gets sick in Quebec and about how that person is seemingly
discriminated against in the Quebec system. In other words, the
interprovincial payment system is full of problems.
Next we have so-called universality. There are great shortages
of services in outlying areas of Canada, far beyond the expected
concentration of special services in regional centres. Where one
lives, how and where one acquired the medical need and one's
personal legal status all undermine universality because these
affect what one gets from the system.
What about comprehensiveness? That has never been followed from
the beginning. Each province has a different list of things that
are covered and those that are not. As the pressure has mounted,
provinces have been forced to delist services. In other words,
there is no operational, national working agreement of core
services. Consequently, Canada does not have comprehensiveness.
Finally, what about public administration? Most of it is
public, in theory, except that there is a lot of contracting out
that goes on for efficiencies such as computer services and
financial support, and the labyrinth of personal cash payments
for services mixed with tax dollars. As well, about 80% of total
public spending for health care is consumed by labour costs for
doctors, nurses and administrators.
Public administration of the complexities of medicare should be
held accountable for cost and efficiency, but since there is no
real competition how do we know what is happening?
The main point of a recent national study was the huge list of
things that the system really did not know, could not account for
or measure. In other words, medicare is administratively in the
dark.
Dr. Heidi Oetter outlined the situation eloquently when she said
in the Vancouver Sun:
This is the year I turn 40. It is a reflective year, a time to
take stock of the past and ponder the future. When I was 20, I
chose to stay in British Columbia and finish my education at the
University of British Columbia's faculty of medicine. When I was
30, I chose to stay in Canada, unlike many of my classmates.
Since then, I've participated in more committees than I care to
count, provincially and federally, to try and make Medicare work.
Sadly, as my fourth decade comes to a close, I have to publicly
say Medicare is decaying rapidly, and if we don't act now, its
future is bleak...
Each new discovery, medication, diagnostic machine or operating
device is expensive. For example, the additional equipment to do
laparoscopic gallbladder removals—the cameras, TVs and
laparoscopes—typically costs $100,000. The new neurosurgical
equipment that will use computers to assist in brain surgery will
cost upwards of $1 million. A magnetic resonance imaging machine
(MRI) costs $1 million. B.C. has nine MRIs and should have 18...
In reality, it is difficult to fund research and new
technologies when the Medicare system cannot even keep up with
today's demands.
Already we have medications and new technologies that Medicare
simply cannot afford. Three times last year I referred patients
to the United States, not to avoid the long Canadian waits, but
to obtain a service that just was not available here. There now
is better technology with improved outcomes for the public, but
it's so expensive that Medicare cannot provide it.
I doubt my parents' generation will accept anything less than
the best for the management of their heart disease, diabetes,
cancers and chronic illnesses. Yet, my boomer generation, by
sheer numbers alone, will challenge the sustainability of
Medicare, as we age into our costliest health consuming years...
So, what do I want for my birthday? I would like to see further
serious public debate on the issues as we have some serious
decisions to make. We have to ask: “How much will we spend on
Medicare? How will we fund new medicines and technologies? How
do we decide what is necessary? What will our spending
priorities be?...Our reality is that Medicare is decaying and is
at risk of imploding. So, let's talk sustainability”.
1555
Dr. Heidi Oetter is a practising family physician in Coquitlam
and chair of the British Columbia Medical Association General
Assembly.
What can we do, especially for those who really care about
health care rather than health politics? We can be very watchful
of the motives and the understanding of those who rant and
derisively point the finger, saying “Someone wants two tier,
American-style health care”. All agree that Canadians want
great health care that is provided fairly and without
catastrophic personal cost.
The constitution of Canada gives the provinces jurisdiction over
social services, including health, education and training, and
social assistance. We need to respect our constitution and
refrain from intruding into the provinces' jurisdiction,
including the formulation of social policy. Is Quebec listening?
The public sector now spends about $60 billion on health. A
cheque the size the premiers want would boost that sum by a
little more than 5%. Their report says that at a minimum
“health spending could increase by close to 5% per year during
each of the next 27 years”. The premiers estimate that by
2026-27 health expenditures will be 247% higher than today. That
prospect is not sustainable.
We believe all Canadians should have access to quality health
care regardless of their financial situation. We need to provide
greater freedom of choice because it raises standards. The needs
of patients must come first in the delivery of health care
services, before restrictive union contracts and administrative
empire building. We must work co-operatively with the provinces
so that they have the resources and the flexibility to find
effective approaches to the financing and management of health
care.
We should not be afraid to allow the greatest freedom possible
to Canadians in their choice of natural health products. We need
to introduce restrictions only on those products that the
government can clearly and scientifically demonstrate to be
harmful. With the right incentives we can learn to manage for
health rather than for sickness.
We can fix the national economy for real growth through tax
reduction and spending reallocation so that we nationally can
create the wealth to pay for the medicare economic challenge and
create a reliable long term funding base.
The provinces are calling for $4.2 billion, and we need to grow
it, rather than borrow it from the next generation. We can bring
standards and independent auditing for greater transparency in
the delivery of health care. We can initiate relations with the
provinces to support and co-operate, not punish. We can examine
and challenge the traditional roles of administration to get
better efficiency and productivity. We can become more patient
focused with the timely use of comparative measures. We must
give evaluative tools to patients so they can make the local
system more accountable and responsive to them.
The Canadian Alliance believes that families should get the best
health care when they need it, regardless of their ability to
pay.
Our plan to address the issues will only work if Canadians
accept the need to innovate and change through co-operation
rather than coercion, local adaptability rather than condemnation
of others.
We can change the present dismal picture and place ourselves in
the top one-third of OECD countries for health care, with no
waiting lists, services that are not in jeopardy of being
delisted, reversing the brain drain and ending the shortage of
health care providers through wise incentives rather than
defensive, punitive rules and barriers.
Who we are as Canadians and our standard of living will depend
largely on the quality of our health care system. Instead of
resisting change, we need to embrace it to solve the challenge of
medicare in our time.
1600
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me to engage in the debate today on health care.
I had the privilege of hosting a health care forum in my riding
only a few weeks ago, so I am very familiar with some of these
issues. In attendance were the former Ontario deputy minister of
health, some of the leaders of our hospitals, some primary care
workers and some home care workers.
We are now having the debate in the House. Members have talked
about money. They seem to think that the simple solution is
just to put more money into health care and suddenly all the
problems will go away.
Members will be interested to know that the health care workers
themselves, while they of course would like more money, made the
statement that it was not about money. Indeed, Canada is the
fourth highest spender on health care in the world. We spend
9.6% of our GDP on health care, $86 billion a year. I have heard
members of the Alliance, surprisingly enough, who are so cost
conscious, say that maybe it should be 12%. I was quite incensed
by that.
One of the conclusions of the health care forum that I put on
was that we could not continue to put money in the top of this
thing because it was not coming out the bottom and it was not
being delivered to the patients.
Do we have a problem in health care? Yes, we do. We have a
problem getting the newest technology. If we look at the waiting
lists, we see that they are getting longer and, at the same time,
we are paying more money for the system. There is definitely
something wrong with the system.
We also see that our health care costs have been rising at the
rate of about 5% a year and are scheduled, because of our
demographics and our aging population, to continue to rise.
People say it will rise as high as 6%.
Mr. Speaker, I do not have to tell you, as I know you have
studied the economy quite a bit, but our economy is only
expanding at the rate of 3% a year. In other words, health care
costs are actually rising twice as fast as the economy is
growing. Obviously, we cannot continue that because instead of
talking about tax cuts, we would be talking about tax increases
to maintain a system like that.
There is no question that we need some changes in the health
care system but what changes are needed? Maybe some doctors are
listening to this today and I do not want to offend them, but one
of the comments I heard was that a normal doctor-patient ration
is about 2,000 patients to 1 doctor. There are differences
depending upon specialization and so forth, but as a general
comment, as a quick working tool, based on the province of
Ontario's population base, we should have about 5,000 doctors. In
fact there are 9,000 doctors in the province of Ontario and I am
told Ontario is screaming for more doctors.
What is the problem when we look at that quantitative analysis?
One of the other members actually mentioned some of the
structural problems. It would appear that many doctors are not
engaged in the practice of medicine or, seemingly, not on a full
time basis. In fact, it is thought that almost 40% of their time
is taken up with administrative duties, such as filling in forms,
pushing papers and so forth because of structural problems. By
the way, these are structural problems that provinces have put in
place.
I dare say that the whole question of malpractice also creeps
into this, the question of how to protect oneself in public
liability cases. This has created a big paper burden as well for
the medical profession. The reality it that these structural
problems have basically created a health care system which, quite
frankly, is broken and is not working.
By the way, I will be splitting my time with another member.
We can agree on a number of things. First, I do not think we
have full agreement about money. I hear politicians of all
stripes saying “Another $4 billion on the table will solve all
of our problems”. That is not so. If it were $4 billion this
year, it would be another $4 billion year after year after year.
It will never go away and the system will not get any better
because we will not have changed the structural problems with
health care.
1605
What are some of the problems in health care as I perceive them?
Some of them are that we do not have an integrated health care
system. In many of the regions we do not integrate the health
care system itself. In other words, when somebody gets sick at
home and has to go to the hospital, a bunch of health care
providers are involved in that: ambulance drivers, paramedics
and so forth. In fact, by the time the person actually ends up
in the hospital almost 40% of the costs have got nothing to do
with health care workers.
How do we integrate those services to ensure a proper delivery
of the system? What occurred to me is that in many parts of
this country we do not have a fully integrated health care
system. We are not using some of our best technology. We know
that we are in a technological revolution but if we go to some of
our hospitals, although we do see doctors working on computers
rather than working on patients, we also see a lot of people
pushing paper around. We also find that we cannot track
patients. In other words, we do not have the simple technology
of a health card with a computer chip on it that gives
information on our health record when we travel from one place to
another in this country. We have the technology to do that but
we are not spending the money on the technology to make it more
efficient. In that sense, we are not using the new technology
available.
Because we have so much inefficiency within the health care
system, we have also made choices on how we spend the money. We
have spent money in areas where it is not very efficient and we
have neglected to spend money on those things that are important,
like investing in new technologies. I am not just talking about
information systems, but also the newest equipment that we need
to keep our people healthy.
There is no question that people are healthier today than they
were 15 years ago. We would rather be sick today than 15 years
ago. All the talk in the House about the health care system
being a terrible system has been a little bit overexaggerated.
What are people looking for? They understand that the system
is not up to speed. They also recognize that the Canadian
population is an aging population and that this problem is just
going to continue to get worse. The reality is that they do not
really care.
When I had my health care forum, I was amazed that people did
not care whether it was the federal or provincial government that
was presenting the health care forum. All they wanted was
somebody to take some leadership on this file, solve these
problems and stop all the finger-pointing back and forth between
governments about who is responsible for what. It is not about
private health care as opposed to public health care. It is
about how we can make the existing system work better.
There are some ways we can make the system work better. We must
have an accountability framework to find out what people are
concerned about in this country. People are concerned about
getting 24 hour primary care. They are concerned about the long
waiting lists that they are suffering in getting to see a
specialist, in getting specific knee transplant operations, or
whatever the case may be. We can define the targets.
What do we have to do as a government? Unfortunately, or some
may say, fortunately, we do not administer the health care
system. We are simply the givers of money. People are fed up
with that kind of attitude. It is not about giving money. The
federal government must re-impose a vision of health care in this
country. That vision must be from sea to sea to sea and it must
be based on basic standards that people find acceptable.
When we put the money on the table we are going to say that we
are putting it on the table but under certain conditions. The
conditions will be that these objectives may not be met today,
but that over a period of time we must see progress in creating a
better health care system or there will be no more money.
Maybe some of the provinces will not buy into this
accountability network. We must also get the provinces working
together. The provinces must have their own permanent registry
system so that they can determine best practices between
provinces. One of the other members talked about the
inter-transfers between provinces not working well. The sharing
of best practices between provinces does not exist. The sharing
of medical records does not seem to exist. We have to do these
fundamental things in order to have a better health care system.
I believe that is what the Canadian people want. They want to
stop this silly debate that we are having in the House and in the
media about money, money, money. This is not just about money.
It is a much more difficult problem to solve. We have it within
our power to solve it. That is the vision that this government
has going forward.
1610
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I was
listening very closely because I think the whole idea of
accountability is an important one. My focus would be on
accountability toward the health of Canadian citizens, not
necessarily a focus just on money. I do not know if that was
what the member was pointing to.
I think we should have accountability and integration. I was
one of the MPs at the ecological summit. We heard reports from
various doctors saying that to have better health for Canadians,
we have to integrate our food, our agriculture, our environment
department and our health departments. We cannot exclude any of
them or look at them independently because when it comes to our
health, they are interconnected.
Along the lines of preventative health, our health care system
should include naturopathic doctors. That has not been done.
These doctors have to get a bachelor of science degree. They
have to train. We have an eminent institution for naturopathic
medicine in Toronto. The doctors have to train there for three
more years and then they have to specialize. They are doctors in
their own right. We should be able to connect with them as well
as with our medical doctors and have that integrated to add to
the health of our community.
I keep hearing that we cannot just throw money at it. Nobody is
saying that we should just throw money at it. That is not
happening. Medicine and care is labour-intensive. People cannot
be left sick and alone. There has to be money for primary care.
I would like the member to respond to that.
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, I respect some of the
things the member for Yukon has said. Indeed, our definition of
health care, if we expanded it, although I think it has expanded,
most people, if asked about health care, would include
naturopathic medicine even though traditionally it has not been
included.
Her concerns about the doctors recognizing naturopathic medicine
goes beyond that. I know in my own province, my own audiologist,
who grew up in New Brunswick and has a three-year university
degree, cannot prescribe a hearing aid without a doctor signing
the certificate. This is ridiculous. These are structural
problems that would exist within the purview of the provinces.
While I understand what the member is saying, I have heard her
party say that we should simply restore the funding to health
care. I do not think that is all that is needed. I think we
want to do more than just restore or increase the funding to
health care. We want to go beyond that to an accountability
framework.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, when
the hon. member was speaking, he talked about certain targets.
When we talk about the infusion of money needed into the health
care system, quite often we hear people say that the best bargain
we have in health care is in proper home care and in such things
as personal care homes, which really cost very little in relation
to keeping the same individuals in major nursing homes or
hospitals.
However, the government seems to hesitate putting adequate
funding into programs where we can keep individuals in their own
homes and in their own communities where they will be happy,
where they will have their own families and where the cost to
government would be minimal in comparison to putting them into
different institutions. The people who are charged with
caregiving are given a meagre sum to carry out their work. It is
almost minimum wage.
I just wonder what plans this government might have or what the
member's idea would be in relation to developing a health care
system where everybody plays a part and those who are involved in
caregiving—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon.
member. A one minute response, please.
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, I might not have
specifically mentioned home care in my speech. Indeed, home care
is one of the answers. There is no question that various studies
that have been undertaken confirm the member's finding that it is
a lot cheaper to maintain an adequate home care system rather
than institutional care.
1615
After all those barriers it was also found that patients prefer
to be in those places. In my province the estimated average
savings is $2,500 per patient if they were on home care rather
than institutional care.
It is part of our government's thought process on how to enhance
health care and how to do away with the so-called geriatric beds
within our institutions to get those patients out of there and
into better areas.
The big problem about universal home care is how to define it
and what is included and what is not. We are still—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon member's
time has expired.
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak to this motion. It gives me an opportunity
to set the record straight on the federal government's share of
Canada's health care funding.
It was announced in the 2000 budget that the government
strengthened for the fourth consecutive time the cash transfers
to provinces and territories through the Canada health and social
transfer.
On February 28, 2000, the federal government announced a $2.5
billion increase to the CHST for provinces and territories to use
over four years for health care and post-secondary education. Let
us not forget that $2.5 billion increase flows from an investment
made through the 1999 budget, an $11.5 billion increase in
funding over five years specifically for health care.
The Canada health and social transfer provides support in the
form of both cash and tax points to the provinces and territories
for health care, post-secondary education, social services and
assistance programs. The Canada health and social transfer is
block funding. It gives provinces and territories the
flexibility to allocate payments and to choose priorities of
their own among social programs.
In the year 2000-01 the Canada health and social transfer will
reach a new high of $30.8 billion. Of this amount, $15.3 billion
will be in the form of a tax transfer and $15.5 billion will be
in the form of cash.
Transferred tax points are not easy to understand, but they do
form a fundamental part of the federal contribution to establish
programs in both health and post-secondary education. This is
how we have been transferring money to the provinces since 1970.
The tax transfer occurred in 1977 when the federal government
agreed with provincial and territorial governments to reduce its
personal and corporate income tax rates, allowing them to raise
their tax rates by the same amount. As a result, revenue that
would have flowed to the federal government to be redistributed
began to flow directly to provincial and territorial governments.
It continues to flow in line with the growth of the Canadian
economy.
Provinces and territories maintain the flexibility on when they
draw down the $2.5 billion. They can draw upon it to meet the
most pressing needs in health care and in universities. At any
time over the course of the four years they may do what they see
fit. It is anticipated that the increase of $2.5 billion to the
Canada health and social transfer will be drawn down by provinces
and territories in a somewhat gradual manner.
What does all this really mean? The bottom line is that the
federal government spends in excess of 34 cents of every public
health care dollar spent by governments in Canada. That is
clearly more than the 7 cents or the 11 cents that some provinces
and the opposition are claiming the federal government spends.
Let us review the facts. It is projected that governments will
spend $64 billion on public health care in the year 2000-01. The
federal government will transfer $30.8 billion through the CHST
to provinces and territories. Based on the historical allocation
this will translate to $18.5 billion for health care in the year
2000-01. In addition, the federal government spends over $3
billion directly each year on aboriginal health care and health
services for the armed forces and the RCMP.
Federal direct funding combined with the $18.5 billion means
that about $22 billion of next year's projected $64 billion
public health care expenditure, or 34 cents for every dollar
spent, will be financed by the Government of Canada.
1620
If we factor in the $9.5 billion the federal government will
transfer to the less prosperous provinces and territories to
invest in health care and other priorities, total federal
transfers in the year 2000-01 will be over $40 billion. All
told, federal spending on health is at least 34 cents of every
dollar spent.
The federal government recognizes the need to ensure that health
care continues to meet the needs of Canadians well into the
future. However, additional money is not the only solution. In
a word, our health care system requires innovation. We must find
new ways of responding to the health needs of Canadians. With
this in mind, the federal government remains committed to the
five principles embodied in the Canada Health Act: public
administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability and
accessibility.
Governments at the federal, provincial and territorial levels
cannot afford to spend their limited resources on health care
ineffectively. This is why the federal government is strongly
committed to partnership. It is through these efforts at reform
and renewal that our health care system will carry Canadians well
into this century.
Many premiers have stated that in their view there is a need to
reshape Canada's health care system and make necessary changes to
ensure that it is sustainable over time. The Government of
Canada welcomes their view. It is their leadership on this
subject and our determination to work with them that will give us
the vision that is required for health care.
Both federal and provincial governments recognize that over the
longer term future decisions about investments in health care
must be based on a plan that responds to the desire of Canadians
for a more integrated approach to health care. New resources in
the future must be based on the shared objective of meeting the
needs of Canadians for quality health care.
The federal government is the first to say that innovation in
itself will not sustain public health care unless it is supported
by adequate funding and a comprehensive plan of action. Let me
emphasize, as the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have
said before me. If more money is needed to ensure an accessible
and sustainable high quality health care system in the 21st
century, the Government of Canada will contribute its share
toward long term financing based on this comprehensive plan.
We agree that the status quo is not an option, but we will not
go down the path of the Canadian Alliance. We will not go where
it would take the country. The Minister of Health has shown that
he is ready, willing and able to work with his provincial and
territorial counterparts to achieve the kind of vision that will
result in sustainable, renewed public health care for all
Canadians. The minister met with provincial ministers in March.
He has spoken with many in recent days and will continue to
teleconference. As a matter of fact he is teleconferencing with
all provincial health ministers tomorrow.
The government continues to work co-operatively. Canadians are
tired of having different politicians at the multiple levels of
government point fingers at each other. They are interested in a
spirit of co-operation in achieving something that will make all
Canadians proud and serve our needs as we are an aging
population. That is the kind of health care system that the
government is prepared to support and defend. We are showing
leadership and we will continue.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
it is my privilege to speak to the amendment. I thank the many
members who have spoken to the motion today.
Many members have made somewhat the same points. The system
does need a lot help. I am disappointed that the health minister
would choose to say that he would not support the motion.
Therefore I guess he is saying that he does not believe the
system is in crisis, that he believes the status quo is an option
and that he thinks the system is sustainable.
Obviously by opposing the motion he is saying those things. I am
rather surprised that all members of the House could not agree
that this is a non-partisan issue. It is an issue that we should
be looking at because 78% of Canadians are saying that is their
number one issue.
1625
In summarizing what we have heard today, basically there are
problems between the federal and provincial ministers talking to
each other. We have heard about some of the turf wars that go
on, whether it is between governments, between various
professions or something much smaller at a very local level. We
have heard about the lack of long term funding, the
sustainability of that funding, and a major disagreement as to
who is funding what and how much.
We have also heard from members that we are spending an adequate
amount comparable to many of the OECD countries. We have had
comparisons to some of them. We must recognize that the World
Health Organization has said that we are falling in terms of our
position in the world on health care. The OECD puts us in the
bottom third for a great many areas within health care delivery.
We have heard a great deal of rhetoric and promises. We have
not heard very many solutions or calls to action. We have not
heard what we will do about the brain drain, technology,
demographics and increasing drug costs. We really have not
addressed a key factor, the extremely growing cost of health
care.
Health Canada today says that the costs will increase at 3% a
year for the foreseeable future. With our present spending of
$86 billion on health care, by the year 2020 that figure will be
$160 billion. That is our total budget of today. We are saying
in some 20 years that will be the figure for health care alone.
How will we deal with that? How will we come up with some
solutions?
Let me try to put some of them on the table today. Obviously we
do not have all the answers, but we are saying that someone had
better start looking at them. We are saying it should be
non-partisan. We are saying it should be for Canadians.
Canadians do not care whether it is federal or provincial. They
do not care whether it is one party or another party. They care
about a system which 78% of them agree is broken.
Let us look at the solutions. I will try to summarize them. I
remind members of the House that the former Reform Party had a
task force report on health care entitled “New Directions:
Setting the Course for Canada Health Care in the 21st Century”.
I recommend that people read it. It has been condensed down to
about 90 pages. It set some targets and goals. I certainly wish
members of the House would quote it as opposed to quoting some of
the other fictitious statements we have heard here.
To emphasize what I am talking about, our party would put
forward to the House a patient centred, results based health care
system. In a patient centred system the patient is number one.
What helps the patient? What problems is the patient having? It
is not the systems, not the government, not the various
organizations, but the patient. The patient is number one. Then
we need to look at the results. What are we achieving? We do
not need to keep protecting the Canada Health Act and hiding
behind it. We need to ask whether it is getting the results for
the patient.
Let me start with two recommendations. The first one is to
promote federal-provincial co-operation. How will we do that? We
could go back in history and obviously say that in the sixties we
came up with a formula where the federal government would provide
50% and the provincial government would provide 50%.
Then we worked up to another system where we used cash and tax
points. I do not think I need to go through all those figures.
Then of course by 1995 we got to the CHST.
1630
If we look at the 1993 figures, the federal government was
transferring $18.8 billion. In 1998 it went to a low of $12.5
billion. Now it has been raised back to $15.5 billion. If we
take all that into consideration, no matter how we do the math,
had we stayed with the 1993 figures we are $24 billion short of
what we would have been had we kept it at the 1993 figures.
No matter how the government twirls that around and hides that,
those are facts that the provinces have recognized and
identified. It does not matter whether it is Mr. Romanow's
government, Mr. Harris' government or Mr. Tobin's government,
they are all telling the federal government the same thing. We
have to stop antagonizing the provinces. I certainly commend Mr.
Romanow who said, I suppose in frustration, that he wanted to
start a national study on this and at least hopefully get the
ball rolling.
The reality is that people do not care about whether the
jurisdiction is provincial or federal. They want it fixed. The
need is obvious. The problems are obvious.
What about the solution to this federal-provincial co-operation?
Let me put five things forward for consideration.
First, we believe as Mr. Romanow does, that we need a health
care advisory board, a group made up of federal and provincial
citizens and of course health care workers. We need to have that
advisory group to look at the situation immediately. The federal
government should be taking the leadership role, not the
provinces.
Second, we need to restore long term stable funding to help
federal-provincial co-operation. We cannot go to the table with
the provinces and say, “We are not giving any more money”. We
do not have to say how much we are giving them but we need to put
all the cards on the table and talk about the money issue.
Third, we need to have an independent auditing of the health
care system. It needs to be audited. It cannot simply have
money thrown at it and no one knows what anything costs. I have
visited many hospitals in the last three months and I keep
asking, “What does that cost? What would that cost? What would
it cost if we did this?” No one seems to know.
The health minister talked about the U.S. system and its
administration and that all the costs are known. I am not saying
that is what we want. I am saying we need to know. We need some
accounting. We need to know what things cost.
Fourth, we need to learn about the innovations in other places.
I was very fortunate to visit the Swiss health care system a few
weeks ago. I was rather shocked at what I found. I was shocked
that when a gentleman with heart pains came to the emergency ward
he was immediately met by two cardiovascular surgeons, two
doctors and two trained nurses. There were eight MRIs and he was
in an intensive care unit within six minutes. All of his medical
history was on a card. They knew exactly what medications he was
on and what treatments he had had. Now that is technology. That
man's life may well have been saved because of those improvements
in that health care system.
We need to learn from those innovations. We need to look at
what Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland and other
countries are doing. Please, Mr. Speaker, advise the members on
the other side to stop talking about the U.S. health care system
as the only example. There are many other much better health
care systems we should be looking at that are spending the same
amount of money that we are. Switzerland spends 10.2% of GDP.
We spend 9.8%. That is awfully close for those two different
health care systems. We need to look at that.
Fifth, I would recommend that we appoint a health care auditor.
He should be empowered by the Canada Health Act to standardize,
co-operate and modernize the Canada Health Act.
He should have that kind of authority. It is important to
Canadians so that should be in place.
1635
Those are concrete recommendations. There is a great deal of
detail that can go with those which we will be providing.
We need to modernize the Canada Health Act. That is a complex
issue which I can only touch on in the minutes I have left. We
oppose a two tier American style health care system, one for the
rich and one for the poor. Nobody wants it and nobody is talking
about it or suggesting it. It certainly is not this party's
position. There, it is said. I could repeat it three or four
more times, but I am sure the crowd across the way still will not
understand it.
I will state our position on the Canada Health Act. We believe
in the tenets of the Canada Health Act, but we are saying it is
not working. It needs to be modernized. I have heard many
people say that in the House. I have heard many provincial
health ministers say that.
The system is not accessible the way it is today. Some 200,000
people are on waiting lists. A lady in my riding wrote me a
letter saying she had just come from her doctor and she needed to
see a specialist and her appointment with the specialist was
scheduled for April 11, 2001. That is not accessibility. That is
a system that is broken, that is not working, that is in crisis.
We could talk about the shortage of MRIs and other technology.
The average age of specialists is 59. It takes 14 years to train
them. We train 1,600 doctors and some years 800 leave. We cut
the number of spaces available for training doctors. We need
2,200 doctors just to replace what the system is going to
require. It is not an accessible system. We need to fix these
things. We need to fix the brain drain. We need to get the
technology. We need to be prepared for what we are going to be
facing in the years to come.
It is not a portable system and many have talked about that,
whether a person is in rural Canada or whether they need
specialized treatment or whether they are in Quebec. I have
asked doctors in hospitals here about patients from Quebec. They
told me that they encourage them to pay first and then to go back
and fight with their government to get the money. That is not a
portable system. That is not acceptable.
Is the system universal? In Alberta there are 333 positions open
for rural doctors right now. It is certainly not very universal.
The presence of specialists is not very universal, as I have
touched on.
Is the system comprehensive? There are a number of delisted
items from health care. We have a real problem with a
comprehensive health care system. We are suggesting again that
we must fix it.
Home care is another major issue. My mother is in Saskatchewan
and is presently having serious problems. That province was a
founder of health care and if that is how people are treated, it
is inhumane and very troubling. We need to look at the home care
and palliative care issues and see what we can do. The Senate
just reported what it thinks about Canada's palliative care
system and the report card was pretty dismal.
Let me talk about public administration. It is fine to say that
the system is fine the way it is, but we need to look at how we
administer health care. We have to open that up. We have to
look at the options. I mentioned the Swiss system and I do not
have time to go into that. This summer I intend to visit other
systems and look at how they work.
We agree with the principles contained in the Canada Health Act,
but they are not working. There is not a Canadian who is not
touched by that. What are the solutions? Let me summarize them
quickly.
One solution is a long term stable funding commitment with a
minimum term of five years. We must work out that deal
collectively with the provinces.
1640
We must develop technology so that we enter the 21st century and
not stay in the 1960s where we seem to be mired. I have talked
about that. There is a surgeon who did a heart operation in New
York and the patient was in Idaho. A robot did the surgery. The
surgeon is able to do three of those a day just by running that
equipment.
On education I have mentioned what we need to do in terms of the
financial commitment to fix that problem. It is not the only
answer but we must come to the table with some dollars.
We need to show leadership to modernize the Canada Health Act,
to demonstrate co-operation between the federal and provincial
governments. The health minister talks about it but then he goes
out and does something dumb which makes the provinces that much
madder. That will not fix the Canada Health Act and it will not
fix what Canadians want fixed.
We need a health care auditor. As I said, we need independent
auditing to make sure the provinces are abiding by the Canada
Health Act and to make sure patients are not abusing the health
care system. We need to know what things cost if we are to have
a health care system like this.
We do not need to reinvent the wheel; we can learn from others.
Many innovative things are happening in Sweden where the system
now is 50% public, 50% private. I do not know if that is the way
we should go, but we need to look at it. There are various
insurance options. We need to look at those. We need to have
open minds and not live with a 1960s socialized state run health
care system such as those in North Korea and Cuba. We have to
move out of that mindset.
We need to modernize the whole system. We need patient centred
health care. We need to be prepared to look at medical savings
accounts and patient guarantees. We have to fix the waiting list
problem. We need to be prepared to look at new technology and
decide if that is a solution to the problems we face. Above all,
we need to work with the provinces and not work against them. We
have to stop the drive-by smears. We have to stop the $2 million
advertising campaign against the provinces. We have to stop
antagonizing them.
In conclusion, the Canadian Alliance stands for fiscal
responsibility. Members know that. We have developed our
principles there but I want to say in the House that we have a
social conscience. There are no hidden ghosts, as my colleague
from the health committee might intimate. There are no ghosts.
There is no hidden agenda. We believe in a patient centred,
results based health care system instead of the Liberal two tier,
turf dominated, non-sustainable, deteriorating health care
system. Remember that we spend the fourth most of the
industrialized countries and we are in the bottom third in terms
of rating our health care system.
As we develop this policy collectively with the help of other
Canadians, with the help of the provinces, we must remember that
this patient centred health care system will result in something
that is sustainable for Canadians. It shocks me that the
government or any member in the House would not support that kind
of co-operative policy to do what is best for health care for
Canadians.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have waited all day for the promise from the Canadian
Alliance of solutions to the health care situation we find
ourselves in today. I have waited all day to hear what members
in that party really mean when they talk about innovation. I am
still waiting. I have rarely heard, except from perhaps the
Minister of Health, such empty rhetoric and flowery statements
with no substance. I have listened very carefully.
Mr. Jay Hill: Like the NDP.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, my alliance friend
said, “Like the NDP”. This morning we gave him a detailed list
of an entire program for renewing our health care system.
1645
I would have expected Canadian Alliance members by now would be
somewhere close to the point of putting some flesh on the bones
and telling us what they plan to do with our health care system.
We are no further ahead today than we were this morning or last
week or last month when their leadership candidates talked
publicly about creating a parallel private health care system.
I am left with a question. Is the motion today a euphemism for
their intent to destroy the health care system? Are they trying
to destroy the health care system in order to save it? Is that
what they are proposing today?
If we look at the list of suggestions, it is worse than the
Liberal government in terms of the studies and reviews they have
promised. The solutions are setting up an advisory board, an
independent audit, learning about innovations, getting a health
care auditor, modernizing the CHA, fixing health care, fixing the
brain drain and fixing technologies, with no specifics. Surely
by now we should have some details.
When will see some details from them? When will we know the
direction in which they intend to take the health care system?
While we are at it, could I have a very clear answer from members
of the alliance reform party on whether they support bill 11? Yes
or no. At least then we might have a good indication from where
they are starting.
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned to the hon.
member earlier, she should not have written those questions
before she heard the speech. The problem is that they were
prepared this morning. Again it is partisan politics. It is a
perfect example of why there are so many turf wars.
We have to put partisan politics aside. Many members in the
House today, in fact pretty well all of them, dealt with the
issue of health care. They came up with what they thought should
be examined and what the solutions might be.
I encourage the member to take a look at our health care task
force report. I encourage her to sit down with me and go through
it point by point. We only have 20 minutes to talk about it in
the House. I understand her frustration.
Bill 11 is no different from what Mr. Romanow did yesterday. He
said he was frustrated. Basically he took Saskatchewan party's
idea and said that we needed a study because the feds were
showing no leadership. Mr. Klein was desperate and thought we
must try something new. We support his going ahead with bill 11
as a pilot project to see if it works. If it does not work, it
could be scrapped. If it does work, it could be implemented
across the country. If Mr. Romanow comes up with some weird idea,
he could try it to see if it works. If it does, he could use it.
That is what we have to do. We need an open mind, not a closed
mind, not a mind stuck in the sixties as many of the NDP and CCF
policies are.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a
few words about the Canadian Alliance motion.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Jay Hill: If my hon. colleague from the NDP would
quick heckling long enough, she might hear what I have to say. I
listened very intently to the comments of the member for Red Deer
about what we really needed in Canada. He did a great job of
fleshing out the alliance position and providing some real
direction for the government if only it were willing to listen.
Let us look at the legacy of Liberal health care funding cuts in
my riding of Prince George—Peace River. As many members House
know, my riding covers nearly a quarter of the land mass of
British Columbia. The communities in my constituency are
isolated in relation to those in the rest of the country. Access
to adequate health care is not only hampered by geography but by
funding as well.
A surgeon must go through a check list of criteria before an
operation, so let us look at the check list for health care in
Prince George—Peace River. The average ratio of doctors to
patients in Canada is about one to a thousand. Yet in my riding
it is one to fifteen hundred. Universality, I do not think so.
1650
There is a need for over twelve full time nurses, at least two
general practitioners, two internists, an orthopedic surgeon and
a general surgeon. There is one orthopedic surgeon to service
68,000 people. The waiting lists for an appointment to see him
takes a year, not to mention the wait for the actual operation.
The same 68,000 people have access to only one OBGYN surgeon and
one psychiatrist. There is such a shortage of nurses that beds
are being closed. The critical care unit in Fort St. John, my
home town, is contemplating closing due to staffing shortages.
There are also shortages of physiotherapist and pharmacists.
This problem is more than just money, despite what the NDP is
saying. It is about taxes, access to education, immigration
barriers for medical professionals from other countries and the
brain drain. Those are all contributing factors to the critical
shortage.
Rural Canadians need more than platitudes from the health
minister. They need the federal government to take a leadership
role and stop playing politics with the health of Canadians. I
can say as the representative of a huge rural riding that this is
not unique just to northern British Columbia. The problem is
inherent from coast to coast to coast, but it is especially
reaching epidemic proportions in rural Canada. We need some
answers and some assistance from the federal government. For too
long it has sloughed it off to the provinces.
I would be interested in hearing specifically from my colleague,
the health critic for the Canadian Alliance, what his thoughts
are about the problems of health care in rural Canada and the
fallacy of the universality of the Canada Health Act.
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, obviously the frustration has
been well demonstrated. That is why 78% of Canadians say that
the system is in crisis. To have the health minister quote a
little paragraph today saying that it is not in crisis is
shocking. The other opposition members should be attacking a
government that would let that happen.
How do we deal with the brain drain? Who cut the seats in
universities for training doctors? Who cut the training in
specialist programs? I have talked to a number of hospitals and
universities. Sixteen universities teach medicine. All of them
have said they have had to cut their programs.
The nursing program in the college in the town I come from had
450 applications but only 60 places for training. That is a
problem that has come from the federal government. We need to
collectively attack the federal government to fix that problem.
The system is broken. We have a two tier health care system or
maybe, as most professionals would say, a five or six or ten tier
system. That is what we should be focusing on. That is the
frustration of Canadians.
I repeat that there will be frustration in the House if the
motion on which we will be voting does not receive 100% support.
The system is in crisis. The system is not sustainable. Status
quo is not an option. If anybody in the House says that it is
not true, he or she is saying that the system is not in crisis,
that the system is sustainable and that status quo is all right.
Those members will hide behind the Canada Health Act and say it
is wonderful. They will say “Tommy, you did it for us”, but
that was in the sixties.
We have to get into the 21st century. We have to do it
collectively and all come up with the answers. As mentioned by
the whip of the Canadian Alliance, the cry is coming from
everybody.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am torn a bit between saying congratulations to the member for
Red Deer and questioning where the backup is to those remarks. If
there is one thing we are about in this place, it is words. When
the member says that the Canadian Alliance is opposed to a two
tier American health care system, I really want to believe him.
1655
The member is articulate. He put his thoughts forward. He
justified his case. It is just a shame that he did not decide to
run for leadership of his party. Maybe then the words he spoke
would somehow miraculously find their way into the policy book.
That is the problem. How do Canadians make a judgment on whom
to believe when the provinces are saying different things about
who is at fault if there are problems in the health care system?
The opposition parties are blaming the government. The
government is naturally defending its position by saying that it
is prepared to sit down and talk about how we can fix the system.
Those members are calling federal-provincial co-operation some
kind of magical thing. What was the nation been built on if not
federal-provincial co-operation? There have been some
exceptions, I say to my hon. colleague from the Bloc, but even
then there were examples when there have been good Liberal
governments in the province of Quebec and relations were
excellent between them and the federal government.
Those members are calling for something that is the very
foundation of the nation. Yet they claim the changes they would
put in place would somehow not lead to a two tier system. If the
words match the music, if the pants match the suit, maybe
Canadians would have some sense of confidence that they are
saying what they really mean.
We have seen the examples. I saw the most incredible display
the other night while watching the debate on the pension issue on
TV. Members of the Canadian Alliance were attacking the Tories
and back and forth. There were accusations about promises made.
They indicated that they would do politics differently when they
arrived in this capital city.
They were not to accept Stornoway as the residence for the
Leader of the Opposition. We know what happened there. The
leader lives there now, or at least entertains there perhaps.
There were not to accept the limo for the Leader of the
Opposition. We know what happened there. After the great
demonstration of handing the keys over and saying that it would
not be used, we know what happened.
What they are saying does not match the actions we have seen in
the past by that party. I believe the critic for the alliance
who just spoke personally believes what he is saying. He is
dedicated and committed to his community and to the health care
system. I believe he has credentials which say that.
Notwithstanding, it is just a shame that the rest of his party
will not come to the same conclusions.
Let us just look at some of the facts, if we might. The former
health critic is a man who I also think is a respected person in
his community, the hon. member for Macleod. What did he say? He
is a doctor and here was his solution to fix the health care
system:
What about a medisave account? I would equate this to an
insurance policy on a car. We do not insure our cars for oil
changes. We insure them for major catastrophes like an awful
crash that would break us if it happened. We insure for the
repair bills on a major issue.
What if we insured for catastrophic things in Canada?
Words are really important, but what do they mean? We do not
have to read between the lines. We can just read the actual
lines. They would provide health care insurance for major
catastrophes. They would provide health care insurance for life
threatening situations, diseases, injuries, heart attacks or
cancer, but they would not provide it without some additional
payment for other issues. Perhaps they would knock emphysema off
the list. According to them patients on oxygen could live on
that and do not need the health care system; maybe that is one
thing that could be delisted.
1700
Picture the single mom sitting at home. Perhaps she has a job
or is on welfare. She may have a child who has a fever of 103 or
104 degrees, is burning up, coughing and is ill. What does she
do? Does she ask “How much money do I have in my medisave
account?” Can she afford to take Johnny or Mary to the hospital
when they are showing all those symptoms? It is just so bizarre.
The member says he does not support a two tier system, whether
it is called American or anything else, I do not really care, but
it is clearly a two tiered system that the Alliance Party is
talking about, unless it is adhering to what I heard the other
night in the debate when a member was asked about his party's
position while debating pensions. The member actually stood in
this place and said that the Alliance no longer had that policy
because it was a new party.
What we are hearing is that it has thrown out the former Reform
Party blue policy book, or whatever colour it is, and that the
new party has no policies on any of these items.
The other day in the House our finance minister, in response to
a question about health care and financing, held up a copy of the
Canadian Alliance's web page. In the section that was laid out
for health care policies, the words were something to the effect
that its position has not been developed yet.
Are we developing policies for, admittedly what the vast
majority of Canadians consider to be a most important aspect, the
health care system? Are we down to developing policy based on a
critic's speech on an opposition day, on a concocted motion that
has been written in such a way as to make it perhaps politically
difficult to vote against? Is that how we are formulating policy
for the development of this country's health care system?
The member mentioned Premier Romanow. I watched the premier on
the news last night and I was quite impressed. I say to the
member from Regina that I readily and openly admit that
Saskatchewan is really the seat of medicare. It is the founding
province of medicare. The NDP had a lot to do with that under
their former great leader Tommy Douglas.
It is interesting now to see that province, one of our smaller
provinces in terms of population, coming up with some
constructive ideas about establishing a national report, about
looking for ways to work co-operatively with the federal
government. I do not see that province flying a bill like bill
11, which everyone in the province of Alberta is frightened to
death about because they fear that it will lead to
Americanization. Why?
The problem we have is that we have another document, a federal
document called NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. I
guess the greatest fear of the people in Alberta is that when
bill 11 is put into force, the American health care company
service providers will have the ability to come in and open up
clinics that will provide surgery, and more than than just day
surgery, they will be able to provide beds and care for patients.
Once NAFTA is opened up in terms of the health care services, I
submit to all members in this place that we will run a very
serious risk. For the members opposite to say that they are not
supporting this, let us just pretend that we can take them at
their word. The member for Red Deer says that the Alliance is
not in favour of a two tier American health care system. How do
we stop it once we open the marketplace up to for profit American
or even Canadian health care company providers. How do you stop
that?
Maybe the member for Macleod's solution for some form of
medisave bank account would be the only solution. We would have
to go to Canadians if we wanted to ensure that they had
accessibility, portability and all the things that are so
important in our system: universality, accessibility,
portability and comprehensiveness.
If we want to ensure that is all there, we will have to write
them a cheque if we allow the provision of health care services,
through the political games that are being played here, to go the
route of privatization.
1705
I am not convinced one way or the other on that bill. I have no
problem having a debate on the issue. I do not really agree with
the hysteria that we see coming from the NDP and the
demonstrations that we see happening in Alberta. I think we do
need to look at new ideas, such as the idea that Premier Romanow
has floated recently in having a national study put together to
see how we can best work together.
The hon. member should not stand in this place as the critic, as
a representative of the official opposition, and make statements
that are not backed up by the words of the people who are running
to be the leader, that are purportedly running to be prime
minister, they think in their wildest dreams. One cannot make
those statements while there is an all-candidates meeting going
on on television and the opposite is being said.
We have one program where we would have a medisave account. Let
us talk about some of the other solutions. Again I say to the
members opposite, it is wonderful for them to stand in here and
make a claim that they are not in support of an American two tier
health care system, but what about the member for Esquimalt—Juan
de Fuca? He has made privatized medicare, private for profit
health care a plank of his campaign to stand for leader of the
Canadian Alliance Party. What has he said? In March 2000 in
this place, in Hansard, he called for us to amend the
Canada Health Act to allow for more private services.
What is really interesting is that at the conclusion of that
member's speech, he admitted that it would be an unfair, unequal
system. This is person who is running to lead the official
opposition who would try to put forth what can only be described
as a fraud on the Canadian people.
The Canadian Alliance members have tried to mislead Canadians by
saying that their party will somehow, in some magical way, save
medicare and that they are not in support of for profit
Americanization and two-tier health care, but that is not what
their leadership candidates are saying.
The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca then goes on, in that
same speech, to ask, rhetorically, if it was unequal. “Yes, it
is”, he said. “I would argue that it is better to have an
unequal system that provides better access to health care for all
Canadians than we have today”. That was said by one of the
candidates, a sitting member of this place, who was clearly
standing up for what could only be described as the two tier
Americanization of our health care system.
Let us go to some of the members who are perhaps in a better
place to win that leadership. Let us talk about the former
treasurer of Alberta, Stockwell Day. When asked recently what he
would let provincial governments do when it came to health care,
a provincial politician, he bluntly stated that health care was a
provincial jurisdiction. What does that mean? Does that mean
that he would perhaps follow the policy book of the former Reform
Party which, when it came to how much it would increase health
care funding in its policy book, the amount was zero, not a dime,
not a cent, not a loonie, not a toonie, nothing?
Is Stockwell Day saying that is his commitment to how he would
improve health care? Would he turn it all over to the
provinces, turn it over to Ralph Klein or to Mike Harris, and
allow them to once again put in place what could potentially open
the floodgates under NAFTA to allow for for-profit health care
providers to take over the marketplace? I suppose that is
clearly an option and one that we do see. The reason that we
talk about Americanization is because that is where we see it.
1710
I have a very close friend who was the best man at my wedding
30-some years ago. He moved to the United States and has a
business there. He has lived in Los Angeles and other places for
many years. He comes home to Canada all the time. A couple of
years ago my friend's wife found out she had breast cancer and
had to go for treatment in the United States. This is a family
with a small business. They are not multi-millionaires. The
treatment to save his wife worked, thank God, but it cost over a
quarter of a million dollars.
Where does a family come up with resources like a quarter of a
million dollars? Where do they find that money? Imagine the
agony of a family in the United States finding out that a loved
one has contracted a disease that is going to take a quarter of a
million dollars to cure and they have no possibility, no access,
no hope of ever coming up with the funding for that.
If the Canadian Alliance truly is opposed to that, I am happy. I
just do not understand why we get so many different messages from
different people in that party.
Let me talk about the former leader of the former reform party,
a current sitting member, although one would find it hard to say
that the word sitting is appropriate, the former member for
Calgary Southwest. In May, in the Globe and Mail, he was
quoted as saying that if he was ever elected prime minister, God
forbid, that no province would ever receive penalties for
violating the Canada Health Act. He called for user fees,
deductibles and private delivery services in a speech to the
Ontario Hospital Association Convention in Toronto in November of
1994.
An hon. member: He got a standing ovation.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: He might have got a standing ovation.
I am not saying that there are not some people, particularly in
the health care industry, who might support user fees, but it is
the Canadian public, the small business, the families who are on
welfare and the working poor in this country who we must be
concerned about. What are we going to do with them, let them
sink or swim? It is absolutely unbelievable.
There is another thing that is most interesting when we talk in
terms of financial contributions to the health care system. The
Alliance has recently joined the Bloc and the NDP in demanding
that a cheque for $4.2 billion be given to the provinces, yet
this is another area where it simply does not match the policy.
What is the commitment in the policy of either the new Canadian
Alliance or the former reform party to funding health care? I
have said it before. It is zero, but it wants to stand and say
that even though it would not be prepared to do it if it were
ever the government, that we should do it, that there should just
be a blank cheque with no concern about whether or not that money
is used to try to help mental health patients, as an example.
Does anyone think that there just might be a correlation between
the fact that Mike Harris closed 6,000 mental health beds in his
first term in office in the province of Ontario and the number of
homeless people on the streets in Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver and
Montreal? Does anyone think that in Ontario at least there might
be a relationship there? Does anyone live on the street in
Canada in February unless they are ill or involved in some kind
of substance abuse?
It is a mental health problem and it is caused by a provincial
cutback in the area of delivering services to mental health at
the same time that the provincial government slashes income taxes
to its rich friends by 30%. There is a correlation.
This government is not prepared to write blank cheques. We want
to know what the provinces are going to do to deliver the proper
quality health care to all Canadians. To that end, we will work
with the provinces to ensure that happens.
1715
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the Liberal member who just spoke.
I agree with his criticisms of the Canadian Alliance, the old
Reform Party. Far be it from me to come to its defence, but it
was very interesting that he kept blaming the Canadian Alliance
for its very conservative agenda. My question for the member is,
why is the government basically being driven by the Reform Party?
Why has it followed the Canadian Alliance agenda?
The member has a background that is very sensitive to the trade
union movement, ordinary working people and progressive movement,
but the government across the way is more conservative than Brian
Mulroney.
I was here in the Mulroney days and Brian Mulroney would never
have cut back on health care like the Liberal government has
done. Brian Mulroney would never have cut back on the CBC and
Radio Canada like this government has done. Brian Mulroney would
never have cut back any of the social programs like this
government has done.
Why is this government so afraid of the Reform Party, the new
Canadian Alliance? Why has it adopted so much of the Canadian
Alliance agenda? Why is it so conservative? I hope the member
will answer that question rather than just provide a bunch more
rhetoric because it is a curiosity and I hear that question often
from my constituents. They ask me “Why is this government so
conservative? Why is this probably the most conservative
government we have had since the second world war? Is it because
the government is so afraid of the Alliance and the Alliance
agenda? Why has it picked up so much of that agenda?”
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that one
could say it is a conservative agenda to support universality,
accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness and public
administration.
The member says he does not want rhetoric. How about the facts?
We have restored funding, with an additional $2.5 billion in the
last budget on top of the $11.5 billion for the provinces. We
have said that we are prepared to commit more money to health
care. I sat in this place today and heard the minister say that.
He is prepared to commit more money.
There is no fear on this side of the House of that party. Let
the member give his head a shake if he thinks there is one
scintilla of fear.
I can assure the member that the Canadian people expect us to be
fiscally responsible. If we were to adopt the NDP way we would
wind up in a situation after five years like that in the province
of Ontario when Bob Rae was the premier and the debt went from
$39 billion to $110 billion, with continuous deficits. We will
not act like the former Mulroney government and run $42 billion
deficits. We will be fiscally responsible and committed to
social programs such as health care.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, may I say at the outset of my very
brief remarks that I cannot believe the audacity of the member
opposite. He talked about how parties on this side want to write
blank cheques and the Liberals are above that. I would submit
that if they were not so used to writing blank cheques to all
their friends through the HRD department and all their grants and
contributions to big business and rewarding friends of the Prime
Minister in Shawinigan, maybe there would be a little money left
over for health care. People know out in the real world that his
statement that they are not prepared to write blank cheques is
absolute foolishness.
In his brief remarks he referred to a mental health problem in
Ontario. I think the mental health problem in Ontario is with
some of the Ontario MPs who are in this Chamber. That is where
the problem lies.
The reality is, and I referred to it briefly in remarks that I
made earlier today, in rural Canada, in rural British Columbia we
have a real problem. Earlier this week my hon. colleague from
Prince George—Bulkley Valley brought up the issue of how short
we are in our hospitals in northern B.C. and north central
British Columbia, specifically in Prince George. The fact is,
the cuts from the federal government have created this problem in
health care in Canada and it is not living up to its
responsibility to provide adequate services so that we can have
the doctors we need in hospitals in Prince George.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, if I thought the member
had just a bit of a sense of humour I might not be upset about
the comments about mental health. To somehow denigrate mental
health or try to turn it into a political issue is disgraceful.
I had a brother, the member should know, who died because of a
mental illness. It is a very serious problem.
1720
He should stand in his place and apologize. He really should.
The mental health issue is one which I think has been ignored,
not only by the provinces but by our own government. I am quite
prepared to admit that.
We need to sit down with the provinces to ensure that, if we are
going to transfer money, some it goes to mental health. We need
to ensure that the money is tied to services for mental health.
The money should go directly to help the people who need it most,
instead of having spurious remarks made by people like the member
opposite about those people.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
was stunned to hear the speech made by the member opposite.
It is easier to see the mote in one's neighbour's eye than the
beam in one's own. I think the member said nothing but lies. I am
sorry to have to use that word.
After his government has cut transfers to the provinces by $33
billion since 1993, the member is trying to teach these same
provinces a lesson. Enough is enough.
I think the member should look at what his government is doing
in the area of health. It took money and put it in its own pocket
when it is the provinces, and not the federal government, that
are responsible for delivering services to the public. It padded
its purse at the expense of the sick and at the expense of the
provinces.
I would like the member to say he is sorry and admit that what
he just said is nonsense.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised
at you. She said that I lied. At least the English translation
said that. I do not know what she said in French.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): If the hon. member
for Jonquière alleged that the member for Mississauga West had
lied—and I have forgotten the French term because I try not to
remember it—I am sure it would be withdrawn.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Speaker, I meant to say he
misrepresented the truth. That is what I meant. He misrepresented
the truth.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I certainly accept
that. I know that the hon. member would never knowingly descend
to that level.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if there
was something lost in the translation, but I know what I heard.
I am not at all surprised. If I make a speech in this place and
I do not get the Bloc members upset, then I really think I have
not done my job. We all understand what their agenda is. We
understand that they want to rip the country apart and they will
use the health care system to do it or the day care system or any
kind of system.
The most disgusting comments I have ever heard a politician make
about another politician were made by Premier Bouchard in
referring to the Prime Minister of this country. It was
unbelievable. He should apologize and this party should demand
that he apologize and not use those kinds of remarks when
referring to the Prime Minister. I do not care about the
partisanship. It was totally cheap, personal and uncalled for.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It has been brought
to my attention by others that in fact the word “lie” was used
and I wonder if the member for Jonquière would withdraw the
remark because I know it is not in keeping with her character.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Speaker, I apologized. I
explained that I meant to say he misrepresented the truth. I
apologized. I withdraw the word “lies”, but the member
misrepresented the truth. That is what I meant to say.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is absolutely
no problem. I just wanted to make sure it was on the record so
that it would be finished.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
NATURAL RESOURCES AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we
move toward our adjournment, which is anticipated later this
evening, I have two motions on which there has been consultation
and for which I think you would find unanimous consent to adopt.
I move:
Provided that on any day prior to June 30, 2000, if the Standing
Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations has a
report ready for presentation in the House, the said report may
be deposited with the Clerk of the House and shall thereupon be
deemed tabled in the House.
1725
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the motion as presented by the parliamentary secretary to the
government House leader. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move a second
motion on which there has also been consultation. I move that
the Sub-committee on Organized Crime of the Standing Committee on
Justice and Human Rights be authorized to travel to Toronto and
Newmarket, Ontario and to a Canadian port and that the necessary
staff accompany the sub-committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the motion as presented by the parliamentary secretary to the
government House leader. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—HEALTH CARE
The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the
amendment.
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to engage in this debate on the health care system
and its future. I fear that with less than four minutes left in
the time allotted I will not have the opportunity to address a
lot of the issues that I would like to address, but I will try to
address as many as possible.
On June 9 provincial and territorial governments issued an
interim report on understanding Canada's health care costs. Let
me first say that the Government of Canada very much welcomed
such efforts. Health policy decision making in Canada needs to
be informed by better evidence, a better understanding of the
issues and a better understanding of the prospects we face. This
report is a good step along the road to that better
understanding. I know that federal and provincial governments
and their officials will continue to work toward enriching our
understanding of these issues.
I would like to start with what the report called the base cost
drivers. The report takes a very broad cut at estimating what
those drivers could be. It argues that health care costs in
Canada will be pushed up by four key drivers: inflation,
population growth, population aging and a catch-all category.
The first is general inflation. As the overall cost of living
rises, so will the amount of money that needs to be spent on
health care. The report pegs this pressure at about 2% a year,
which is consistent with the policies of this government to keep
inflation between 1% and 3% so as to keep interest rates low and
the economy strong.
The second is population growth. As the number of Canadians
grows so will the need for health care spending.
The third is population aging. It is well known that older
Canadians have more health care needs than younger Canadians by a
wide margin. They are more likely to have chronic health
problems, those that persist and cannot simply be fixed by some
procedure like setting a broken limb, and are more likely to need
some ongoing form of care as health problems cost them some of
their independence. The aging of Canada's population will thus
inevitably add to health care cost pressures.
The report estimates that between now and 2026 aging will add
around 1% a year to health costs, somewhat lower for the next few
years, and more further out as the baby boomer generation moves
into their sixties and seventies and beyond. One of the reasons
there will be more older Canadians in the future is not only
because we are living longer, but because we are healthier and
indeed having more years of life in good health.
The last base cost driver the report mentions is a catch-all
category. The report assumes that we will spend more on health
care year in and year out between now and 2026 to cover off
increases in the available health care technology and for a
variety of other pressures.
Historically, health care costs in Canada have risen faster than
just population growth, the effect of aging and general
inflation. These four factors together, general inflation,
population growth, aging and this other component, gave a base
estimate that health care costs in Canada will rise about 5% a
year from now until 2026.
1730
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): On that bad news, it
being 5:30 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and
put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of this item.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to Standing
Order 81(18) and to order made on Wednesday, June 14, 2000, the
recorded division stands deferred until later this day at 9 p.m.
* * *
[Translation]
MAIN ESTIMATES, 2000-01
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5—HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 5, in the amount of $992,135,000, under HUMAN
RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT—Department—Grants and contributions, in
the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001
(less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak in
support of this motion this afternoon.
The Government of Canada has made a commitment to improve the
quality of life of all Canadians. We have developed a complete
and cohesive vision to enable us to attain that objective.
That vision was defined in the throne speech and given concrete
form in the budget. The supply bill we are debating today is
proof of that. This vision is a clear one. We are striking a
fair balance between expenditures, tax reductions and paying
down the debt.
When our government came into power, we inherited an impressive
deficit of $42 billion. With the support of Canadians in every
part of the country, we have eliminated this deficit. After
years of austerity, we are now in a position to make
investments.
We are not investing carelessly, however. It is not our
intention to go back to the spending policies of the
Conservative government of that time.
Instead, we will be investing strategically and responsibly in
health and in programs that will enable us to create employment,
to improve people's feeling of security, both individual and
collective, and to promote prosperity in general.
Canadians have told us what they wanted: a prosperous country
with well-protected communities, a country with a healthy
environment, and opportunities for their children's future.
They also want a country with a heart, a country with
compassion, one with a shared and profound feeling of collective
responsibility. Those are the objectives of Canadians, and
those are our objectives as well.
Perhaps we are talking numbers today, but we cannot lose sight
of the real meaning behind those numbers. It is easy to
consider major expenditures as merely abstract figures.
It is sometimes harder to see the human aspect that lies behind
the columns of figures presented to us.
1735
It is important to do it however. We must never forget that the
expenditures we are discussing today will have an impact on the
everyday life of Canadians.
The investments proposed in the supply bill will increase the
ability of the RCMP to ensure the safety and security of our
communities. They will help prairie farmers who have fallen on
hard times. They will reinforce native communities. They will
help young people to have access to post-secondary education and
good jobs. They will make access to government services easier,
and will thus bring citizens and their government closer
together.
This is why I support the bill before us today. It is a good
bill that will help people across the country.
As hon. members
are aware, the government is asking for $34.5 billion in this
supply bill. It represents a huge portion of this year's main
estimates.
The main estimates reflect most of the spending plan
presented by the government in the March budget. The main
estimates for fiscal year 2000-01 amount to $156.2 billion, or
nearly 99% of the total projected expenditures.
This includes the government's request to parliament with
respect to a sum of $50.1 billion for which an annual
authorization is required, and $106.1 billion worth of
expenditures authorized under current acts.
It is worth noting, in passing, that this year's main estimates
show a $4.6 billion, or 3%, increase over last year's estimates.
This is not to say that we are going backwards and spending
wildly. This is not how this government is managing its
operations. In fact, the total expenditures as a percentage of
GDP has decreased over the last four years, from 17.1% in
1997-98, to 15.8% now.
The same for program spending, with expenditures to reach
$116 billion in 2000-01, or $4 billion less than in 1993-94.
There are many reasons why this year's main estimates are
$4.6 billion higher than last year.
For one thing, we have put $1 billion more into the Canada health
and social transfer, and $700 million more into old age security,
the guaranteed income supplement and the spouse's allowance
program.
Because of our ageing population, we see that the number of
beneficiaries and the mean rate of benefits are increasing.
Canadians have told us what their priorities are: a strong
social security net, and reliable, quality health care. We have
listened to them and, as you can see, we are making the
necessary investments.
[English]
Our commitment to serving Canadians is also clearly reflected in
the funding that we are seeking approval for today. A
significant portion of these funds will go to maintaining and
preserving the levels of service that Canadians expect from their
government.
Some of this money will go to ensure the sustainability of a
number of core federal services. We intend to improve among
other things the safety of the country's public infrastructure.
We want to augment the safety of food inspection. We want to
speed up the response times and capacity of search and rescue
services.
The plans outlined in the supply bill will allow us to do this.
Let me stress again the supply bill is not just about numbers; it
is about people.
1740
The funds we are seeking approval for are not arbitrary amounts.
These funds will help us administer and fund programs and
services that increase our general prosperity and
competitiveness. We made a commitment to do this in the Speech
from the Throne and these were not idle words.
Before I close my remarks, I would like to touch briefly on a
related topic. There has been concern of late about the policies
and frameworks that guide government expenditures. Concerns have
been raised, particularly about grants and contributions. It
would be remiss of me as President of the Treasury Board not to
address this issue for a moment this evening.
Canadians work hard for their money. They expect the government
to manage their tax dollars wisely and with great care. Canadians
have a right to expect their government to administer funds
judiciously. This principle is one of the pillars of good
government. It is something this government takes very
seriously.
That is why on June 1 I announced measures to strengthen the
management of public spending through a revised policy on
transfer payments. The revised policy will strengthen the
supervision of grants and contributions, focus on results,
promote responsible spending and heighten effective control.
Above all it will provide for increased accountability and
transparency to parliament and Canadians.
This is not a knee-jerk response to recent headlines. The
revisions we have implemented were not hastily put together.
Rather they are a result of the review of the policy of grants
and contributions that was initiated in 1999. This was many
months before the Human Resources Development Canada internal
audit raised concerns about the grants and contributions issue.
The government routinely reviews its policies and frameworks to
ensure that they are up to date and serving Canadians well. The
review of grants and contributions was part of an initiative
aimed at updating all policies related to the comptrollership
function of the treasury board. We are taking measures on the
broad front to identify ways to improve the stewardship of public
funds. I should note that the revised policy on internal audits
and evaluations is also forthcoming.
The revised policy on transfer payments requires that
departments guarantee that measures are in place to ensure due
diligence in approving payments. There must also be due
diligence for verifying eligibility entitlement whenever a new
contribution program is being established or renewed. Eligibility
criteria for receiving assistance must be predetermined, made
public and applied on a consistent basis. We want to ensure that
grants are made in a fair and transparent manner. The playing
field must be level and everyone must know what the rules are.
Canadians should tolerate nothing less.
Before funds can be allocated, departments must demonstrate that
they have a results based accountability framework in place.
Accountability is essential to effective stewardship. These
frameworks must include performance indicators, expected results
and outcomes, as well as evaluation criteria to be used in
assessing a program's effectiveness. After all, we cannot give
public funds to projects that do not produce some sort of
quantifiable results. Furthermore, departments must recommend
specific limits to federal assistance where recipients receive
funding from multiple levels of government, including other
federal sources.
There are other important aspects of the revised policy. All
programs will be required to be formally renewed through the
treasury board at least once every five years to ensure ongoing
relevance and effectiveness.
If there are concerns about a program, this renewal process may
be considerably less than five years.
1745
We are also concentrating on transparency. The Government of
Canada is committed to operating in an open manner. We have made
improving reporting one of our main management priorities. This
commitment is clearly reflected in the policy on transfer
payments.
Departments must report on each transfer payment program which
transfers in excess of $5 million in their annual departmental
reports on plans and priorities. This must include descriptive
materials such as stated objectives, expected results and
outcomes, as well as milestones for achievements.
Departments must also follow up on this later in the year in
their departmental performance reports. They must look at the
commitments they made in their reports on plans and priorities
and show evidence of the results achieved. In this way we ensure
that all major programs are showing progress. If they are not,
we will know why and be able to respond accordingly.
[Translation]
This revised policy on transfer payments only represents one
element of our broader efforts aimed at modernizing the
practices of the comptroller's duties. That element, in turn, is
part of a larger and co-ordinated initiative aimed at modernizing
public management in general.
The expectations and requirements of Canadians are changing and
public management practices must follow suit.
That is why we developed a new management framework, which will
allow us to take up the challenges of the new millennium.
Last March, I tabled the new management framework in parliament.
It is entitled “Results for Canadians”. This document shows how
management practices change to adapt to the changing priorities
of Canadians.
It describes our new management philosophy, which stresses the
need to maintain a strict control while using tools that enhance
initiative and creativity in government departments.
It describes our management commitments, the way we strive to
create a government more focused on citizens, on results and on
values, intent on spending responsibly the funds made available
to it.
Finally, this management framework shows how we honour our
commitments, by working assiduously on many fronts.
In some respects, the supply bill is a major component of that
process. The items for which we are seeking approval will help
us meet our objectives. They will help us fund programs that
will improve our capacity to serve Canadians. In short, they
will also help us improve the government.
That is what citizens of this country want, and that is also
what they deserve. Finally, without any doubt, that is what this
government has committed to give them.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the speech of the
president of the treasury board. I would like to draw her
attention to the grants and contributions issue.
I remember that, after the situation at HRDC was revealed, the
Minister of Human Resources Development said the situation was
serious. This was directly contradicting the Prime Minister, who
had talked about a $101 problem. Her attitude, at least at the
time, seemed to be more responsible than the Prime Minister's.
Today, she talked a lot about having instituted a review of the
policy for the future. But she also talked about control.
1750
The control function involves, among other government
responsibilities, imposing sanctions when mistakes are made and,
more than mistakes, when unacceptable behaviours occur.
It would be great if the government could manage to rectify the
situation in the future, but until today, it has not done
anything to stop the use of funds for partisan reasons, which
has been revealed, verified and demonstrated here in the House
through a number of questions, particularly in the Prime
Minister's riding, where public funds have constantly been used
in an inappropriate and unacceptable fashion.
I would like to know if the president of the treasury board
thinks something could be done to correct the situation. I have
read reports in the paper this week, which I found alarming.
There are people in the present Liberal government who say “We
should get rid of job creation programs, because we really
mismanaged them”.
Does the president of the treasury board share that opinion?
Does she agree with the members of the Liberal majority who say
that there should be no more job creation programs to stimulate
economic growth in areas of high unemployment? Or would she
agree that better control mechanisms and penalties are necessary
to make sure that the present situation does not repeat itself?
Does she agree with me that there should have been an
independent public inquiry and that concrete measures should
have been taken to condemn such use of public funds for partisan
purposes?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, let us try to clarify
things here. My colleague has several different elements to his
question.
First and foremost, the situation that was brought to our
attention related to an internal audit. It is totally normal for
a minister to have an internal audit done. I would say it was
the ABC of administration for a department to have an internal
audit. It is an essential administrative tool for proper
knowledge of what is going on as far as departmental programs are
concerned, in order to see what is going well or less well in the
application of those programs.
Let us put ourselves into the proper context. This was an
internal audit carried out by the department, which had decided
on its own to audit seven separate departmental programs. As soon
as the internal audit report was completed and submitted to the
minister concerned, it was made public.
The minister herself considered the situation so important that
she released the report to the public, immediately proposing an
action plan to remedy the problems. As far as I know, nowhere in
the internal audit report was there any proof that there had been
problems relating to partisan funding, as my colleague over there
has said. These are his own conclusions, and I do not share
them, absolutely not.
Let us not forget that the programs addressed by the internal
audit were not strictly job creation programs, but also ones for
other clienteles. I am thinking for instance of the literacy
program. Various HRDC programs were covered in the audit report.
The programs covered by the internal audit were evaluated.
Nowhere was this program mentioned. These are national programs.
Once the situation became known, the Minister of Human Resources
Development called on treasury board for help in putting an
appropriate action plan in place. And that is what we did. We
worked very closely with Human Resources Development Canada. I
even delegated a very senior official from my department, who
worked with Human Resources Development Canada to put the plan in
place. In addition, the plan was approved by the auditor general.
I see no need anywhere for a public inquiry. We are aware of
the administrative problems of this program, and we have,
accordingly, formulated an action plan that, at the moment, is in
place and rectifying the problems in the system.
1755
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the minister. She
talked about all the improvements, which was fine, but we still
have a fundamental problem regarding the approval of the
estimates and the fact that the motion that is being debated is
actually a motion by the President of the Treasury Board to
reinstate the $992 million for her department. That is the first
motion that will be voted on because the Canadian Alliance put
forward a motion to strike $110 million from that department.
Later on this evening when the first vote is called it will be
on the $992 million, which I think is fundamentally wrong. That
is the main motion. After the main motion is agreed to, we will
be asked to vote on our amendment, which is totally converse and
upside down to everything else that happens in the House. The
amendment to the main motion is voted on before the main motion.
In the light of all the improvements the minister has suggested
are taking place, will she tell tell House that she will
undertake a study to ensure that the standing orders are amended
so that when it comes to supply we vote on the amendment to the
main motion before the main motion?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows very
well that he can refer this matter to other committees of the
House, which will study the whole regulatory question. We are,
at present, in a position to follow exactly what is going on in
the House and therefore to follow the regulations before us.
Parliamentarians have had the main estimates before them for a
number of weeks, and I am sure that they have looked carefully at
this government spending and will monitor it carefully. For this
reason, I thought it important in my presentation, given the
recent concerns expressed particularly with respect to the grants
and contributions program, to inform the House of the
improvements we have made in recent policy.
I would hope that my colleague in opposition will study this
policy closely, and perhaps take it to the public accounts
committee which he chairs, to see the benefits of implementing
this policy in all government departments.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would love to understand what the minister is saying. Whenever I
inquired about a project involving the Department of Human
Resources Development, I was told time and time again that, in
the past, they followed treasury board guidelines.
The minister just told me that they revised their guidelines for
the future. Is this to say that, in the past, there were no
guidelines or that the guidelines were not followed?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should point
out to the hon. member that a policy existed before June 1, in
fact there has always been a policy on transfer payments with
respect to grants and contributions. Such a policy has always
existed and has been reviewed over the years. The last time was
in 1994, six years ago.
Last year, a group of outside consultants who had been asked to
see how we could modernize the control function submitted a
report in which they strongly recommended that we review our
policy on grants and contributions, which we did.
It is clear therefore that there is a treasury board policy with
very specific requirements, which applies to all departments and
which has been significantly strengthened compared to the former
one.
Now, the problems that have occurred at Human Resources
Development Canada—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry, but time has
run out.
1800
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for
Calgary—Nose Hill.
It is not often that I start this annual debate on the business
of supply by congratulating the minister but I would like to do
that on the progress she has announced this evening in the things
that she is undertaking, about new policies to administer grants
and contributions. While she has made these initiatives, they
have been at the encouragement and coaxing of the public accounts
committee which has been talking about these issues for quite
some time. It has been telling the minister to make some real
progress in ensuring that the door for grants and contributions
is narrow and specific and is not five miles wide so that anybody
can drive through and help themselves. It seems that we are
making some progress in that direction.
I would also like to commend her because obviously the minister
has read my private member's bill on program evaluation which
talks about four things. First is that the public policy shall
be determined and articulated. After we know what the program is
trying to do we then ask how well we are doing it. Then we can
ask, are we doing it efficiently and can we achieve the same
results in a better way?
I have given talks across the country and people are appalled.
They ask, “Are you not doing that already?” I have to say no.
Such enlightenment has been beyond the government. Therefore I
have to congratulate the minister, because that enlightenment
seems to be shining through the window, albeit a small window.
Progress is being made and I would like to congratulate her on
that initiative.
Today we are approving approximately $50 billion worth of
non-statutory spending. Let us remind the general public that
the government is working its way through $156 billion of its
money this year. That is what it intends to do, which by the way
is up $5 billion from last year, and up from the year before and
the year before. It has always increased. This year it is $156
billion and I expect that we will see some supplementary
estimates between now and next year for another $4 billion or $5
billion, so no doubt it will get to $160 billion.
Of that $160 billion, $116 billion I think the minister said,
does not even come to the House for a vote. That has to be
changed too. We have to have the authority in the House to speak
about the $116 billion of taxpayers' money that is being spent
without parliamentary review. Periodically an audit surfaces, as
one did last January, and we find that because there is no
parliamentary review there are such things as billion dollar
boondoggles.
That would not happen if the committees had greater input into
the spending and we were able to look at that $116 billion. Then
there is the rest, some $50 billion that is called non-statutory,
to pay the rent, salaries, phone bills and the grants and
contributions, that the minister has suggested we authorize
tonight.
The Canadian Alliance party has said we do not mind grants and
contributions by and large but the transitional jobs fund has
been an absolute disgrace. It has embarrassed the government and
has shocked Canadians. That program should be just plain old
scrapped.
We have suggested in our motion that $110 million be removed out
of the $160 billion. It is not a lot in the whole scheme of
things but because it has been such a total shambles, let us cut
that program now. There have even been some hints in the
newspapers that the government will cut it. Let us do it
tonight.
However, the process of the House is skewed so that the minister
reaffirms that we spend the money before the House is asked to
cut the money. We cannot speak out of both sides of our mouth
and therefore the government wins the day.
The last time a nickel was cut out of the estimates was in 1972
when Prime Minister Trudeau had a minority government.
The opposition had a bee in its bonnet about the CBC and $1,000
was knocked off the president's salary. The last time was in
1972. That is how ineffectual the House has become.
1805
Approving the estimates has become a perfunctory joke. Because
of that there is the billion dollar boondoggle at HRDC. That is
the only one we have uncovered. Maybe we could go down the whole
line of cabinet ministers on the front bench and find that each
department is hiding a billion dollar boondoggle which we have
not been able to uncover. That is why we need more parliamentary
authority to investigate these things.
We in the Canadian Alliance have tried to be prudent and
intelligent by saying cut the $110 million. We will live with
the rest of the expenditures.
We have to take a look at the fifth party, the Tory Party. It
is suggesting in its amendments that 90% be knocked out of
national defence. It is suggesting that 80% be knocked out of
fisheries and oceans and that $1 billion be knocked off health
care. What kind of responsible party is that? Those members are
not responsible.
Our fight this evening is largely with the government because
taxpayers deserve better. They deserve to have more openness.
The minister is now telling us that we are going to get more
openness. The government has been in office for six years and it
is only after $1 billion has gone down the proverbial drain that
it is now talking about openness.
It is only after the government spent $145 million on the
millennium fund that we are finally getting some accountability.
The government was doling out money the week before last. I am
talking about $25 million. Who is celebrating the millennium
today? The Liberals had their big party on December 31. They had
a good time. The lights did not go out and everything continued
on as normal.
The government is still celebrating the millennium with Canadian
taxpayers' money. What did we get? We got trees worth $1
million. We got balloons floating out of New Brunswick at a cost
of $215,000. We got the celebration of fire in downtown
Vancouver for $25,000. The idiocy went on and on. The government
authorizes anything. If money is going to be spent around the
millennium, it is called a millennium grant. The idiocy of some
of these things makes me weep. We hope that idiocy is behind us.
I have to congratulate the minister because she is trying. She
is bringing in some new rules and she is listening to the public
accounts committee. She is listening to my private member's
bill. She is listening to the Catterall-Williams report in which
I played a fairly major role. After seven years in this place I
am starting to see the government is finally listening to some of
the proposals we are making to make the process better.
I still want to see the process of approving the estimates
through the House change. I will work on that on another day,
but we have started. On that note, I thank the minister.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened to what the Canadian Alliance
member had to say and I would like him to repeat what the
official opposition party members think about the management of
grants and contributions programs.
I know that we do not share the same point of view on the
relevance of these programs, but would we not both agree that,
in the end, the present federal government is the one that has
most undermined their relevance? Whether or not one believes in
the relevance of the programs, whether or not one believes in
any particular program, one has to ensure that they are managed
properly.
1810
At present, when the government manages job creation programs,
it undermines them terribly, it devalues them and, ultimately,
it lays itself open to criticism from those who think these
programs are not relevant.
We in the Bloc Quebecois think that these kinds of programs are
relevant, but I know that Canadian Alliance members do not
necessarily believe in them.
Regardless of the intrinsic value of these programs, has the
federal government not done serious harm to their reputation and
contributed to the present debate within the Liberal Party of
Canada as to whether or not it should continue to have them, is
management lax, and is this not what damages the reputation of
these programs in the eyes of the Canadian public?
[English]
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, as I said, it is not so
much that we are totally opposed to grants and contributions in
principle provided they are an investment in Canada and an
investment in Canadians, rather than just spreading the largesse
around the country where it can buy the most political votes. We
have heard that. We heard about it in question period today.
I get back to my private member's bill which says that it does
not matter if it is the grants and contributions program or any
other program the federal government is involved in, we must ask
four simple but fundamental questions. First we ask what is the
program designed to do? Once we know that and the program is
running, then we ask how well are we achieving what we want to
do? Then we can ask if we are doing it efficiently. We should
always be asking the question of whether we can achieve the same
or better results in a better and different way.
When we have asked these four fundamental questions and we find
out that a grants and contributions program is beneficial to
Canadians, then perhaps we should support it. That applies to
any program. But this pouring money down the proverbial drain
with no thought whatsoever to the fact that the taxpayers have to
sweat to make that kind of money and with no thought to the
benefits that we are getting for that kind of money, that is the
problem with the management of the grants and contributions
program.
We found that with the HRDC billion dollar boondoggle. There
was no grant application on file. We do not even know why they
wanted the money, but we gave them the cheque. We did not know
what they were going to do with the money when they got it, but
they got the cheque anyway. And the list went on. It was
absolutely deplorable that the government would spend taxpayers'
money without the proper criteria being in the file to justify
that it was value for money.
That is why I say to the hon. member that we want value for
money in the spending of taxpayers' money.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, could the member for St. Albert share with us the
position of the Canada Alliance with respect to bill 11? Does he
personally support bill 11 in Alberta which is moving to
privatize our health care system?
I remind the member that some of the Reform members, including
his former and perhaps future leader, embrace bill 11. One of
the leadership candidates, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca supports bill 11 and a dual privatized health care system.
What does he feel about the results of the byelection?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry, I am
interrupting because the hon. member for St. Albert has one
minute for his response.
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, I will apply the rule of
relevance and not talk about the byelection. We are talking
about the business of supply.
The hon. member raised the issue of bill 11 and there is a
motion on the table to deal with health care. He is right in
saying bill 11 is not the privatization of health care but to
provide accountability.
A few private institutions are going to be competing for
business with public health care. The private institutions are
going to have to cover their capital costs out of the exact same
fee that the public sector is going to get. Hopefully, the fees
will be enough to make a little bit of profit. They will have
some profit. They will have to pay tax on the profit, on exactly
the same fee that the public sector only has to cover its
operating costs with. The public sector is having a hard time
covering its operating costs, and the private sector on the same
money will have to cover its capital costs as well. If that can
be done, we ask why the public sector cannot do it so
efficiently.
1815
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, as you know, we will be voting later
this evening on almost $160 billion worth of government spending,
and we will be voting after only three and one half hours of
debate. We are given three and a half hours to examine $160
billion worth of spending. That is because parliament has lost
control of government spending. There is no meaningful
examination of government spending. We just vote it through as a
matter of course.
The Canadian Alliance has introduced a motion to reduce
government spending by $110 million. Out of $160 billion we are
saying that $110 million should be taken from the grants and
contributions program of the Department of Human Resources
Development. It would be a tiny reduction, but it would be very
significant. That $110 million represents the annual expenditure
by the Department of Human Resources Development on the
transitional jobs fund and the Canada jobs fund.
Let us look at this TJF/CJF program. First, 51 of 122 ridings
across Canada which received TJF grants had been identified by
the 1996 census as having less than 12% unemployment. In other
words, 51 of 122 of those grants did not meet the criteria for
the program. That is number one.
Number two, the riding of the member for Edmonton West, who
happens to be one of only two Liberal members in Alberta,
received three grants worth over $2 million from the TJF. All
but $70,000 of the moneys were given three months before the last
election, and the unemployment rate in that member's riding was
7% at the time, not 12% as the program required.
The riding of the leader of the Bloc Quebecois had an
unemployment rate of 15% in 1996. That riding received only
$100,000 over three years. However, the Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration, having the neighbouring riding right beside the
riding of the leader of the Bloc, and having a lower unemployment
rate, received over $5 million. It was $100,000 for the Bloc
leader's riding, and the Liberal riding next door received $5
million. That is how the program is being applied.
The minister signed off on 49 grants during the writ period of
the last election, which is almost twice the program period. In
other words, there was an accelerated approval that nearly
doubled during election time.
In total, $13 million in TJF grants were approved by the
minister during the election. Six grants were approved by the
present minister the day after she was briefed on the disastrous
audit of this program. She then approved nearly another $1
million worth of grants, the very next day, knowing that there
was a serious lack of controls in the way this program operated.
By December 3 she had approved a total of 19 grants worth almost
$3 million. Yet the minister stated in the House many times that
she took the audit very seriously and was going to make sure that
everything was all right with the program.
Let us look at some of the grants that were given. First of
all, there was the Auberge des Gouverneurs. This was a $6.4 million
hotel project owned by a Belgian businessman and confessed
embezzler. He received $600,000 in March 1997, which was first
announced under the HRDC targeted wage program, but then later
changed to the transitional jobs fund program because he needed
the capital immediately. He did not want to wait until he
actually created some jobs to get the money.
Then he lobbied for and received another $100,000 under TJF.
This is a confessed embezzler and the subject of
some real concern.
Then there is the Auberge Grand-Mère. This is a hotel beside a
golf course, one-quarter owned until September of last year by
the Prime Minister himself. Even after the sale of his golf
course fell through in January 1996, he helped get a TJF grant
for the hotel worth $164,000, knowing that improvements to the
hotel might improve the value of the golf course beside it.
The grant was announced by the Prime Minister's friend, René
Fugère, just two days before the election, but it was only
approved by the minister afterward in July 1997.
1820
Then there was Globax and its daughter companies Placeteco and
TechniPaint. They got over $2 million from TJF, which was
announced just a month before the election. They gave nearly
$20,000 to the Liberals, including $4,000 to the Prime Minister's
personal campaign.
On the last day of the fiscal year over $1 million was placed in
a trust, contrary to treasury board guidelines, set up by a law
firm headed by a two-time political appointee of the Prime
Minister and administered by that individual for a handsome fee.
One of the companies that got some of this money went bankrupt
and was then repurchased by someone who had been involved in this
whole business. The purchaser said that he was not bound by any
of the conditions of the grant and set up business with half of
the jobs that had existed previously. In other words, public
money went into a company that cut jobs.
Then there is Les Modes Conili, which was given three quarters
of a million dollars in 1997. It gave $7,000 to the personal
election campaign of the Liberal member of parliament for
Ahuntsic, who had lobbied for the grant. All of the workers from
company A were simply moved to company B, and in the
process they scooped up three quarters of a million dollars of
taxpayers' money. The RCMP is now investigating this matter.
Then there is Iris Hosiery Inc., which got the largest single
transitional jobs fund grant. It was over $8 million. It was
supposed to create 3,000 full time jobs. This company gave over
$21,000 to the Liberals, including nearly $6,000 to the Liberal
candidate in the riding. This grant helped to put an undisclosed
number of competitors out of business and killed untold jobs.
Then we have Duchess Foods, which helped the HRDC minister
entice a company from Hamilton to her riding. The federal
government financed 90% of that move. The unemployment rate in
Hamilton at that time was 5% and in Brantford it was 6%.
Then there was a call centre that was induced to move into the
HRDC minister's riding, RMH Teleservices. It got $1 million. It
later said that it was just icing on the cake. Now we find that
this same prosperous American company has received another $1
million in TJF money to operate another call centre in Sault Ste.
Marie.
We have Media Express Telemarketing, which gave $10,000 to the
Liberal Party and got nearly a million dollars of the TJF.
We have Superior Industrial Rail, which got over a million
dollars from the TJF and the CJF. It just closed its doors on
June 9. HRDC said that it needs to meet with the company to find
out where the money went and whether it met the terms of the
department. This is a good time to try to figure out where the
money has gone.
The point is that it has been over 25 years since the House
voted to reduce any of the main estimates. If anything begs to
be cut it is this boondoggle program of $110 million a year for
CJF and TJF which has been the subject of untold scandal and
political pork barrelling. We are asking the government to
finally stand on its hind legs, on behalf of Canadians who have
to foot the bill for this kind of nonsense and wrongdoing, and
simply say that it will cut a program that is clearly not in the
best interests of Canadians.
Liberal members have been complaining that they are voting
machines and trained seals and have to do whatever the government
tells them to do. Here is a chance to vote down $110 million.
It is a small amount, but it would send a very big signal that
wasteful programs will not be tolerated by members of parliament.
1825
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened carefully to the overview given by our colleague from
Calgary—Nose Hill.
It brought back to the fore, on this last day of this
parliamentary session, everything that has happened in this
government over the past months with regard to grants, and
everything the opposition parties have denounced.
I was very happy that the member for Calgary—Nose Hill
summarized all these events. This shows these programs are there
for a purpose. However, I realized that no matter what their
purpose is, this government has lost control. It made sure these
programs, which were necessary, designed to help taxpayers, and
were supposed to meet very specific criteria, had no established
rules to begin with.
There was no audit and no treasury board standards. They were
left to the whim of the individuals who made the decisions.
I am disappointed. I come from a riding where we need programs
to help communities. It is important to help people who have good
ideas, but who do not have the money to bring them to fruition
and create jobs.
I would like to ask my colleague for Calgary—Nose Hill if, in
her great wisdom—I saw how wise she was during all the debates
we have had in this House—she could tell us how it should go in
the future, even if this government loses the next election?
Which criteria should be put in place to ensure it will not
happen again and these programs truly help communities in need?
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
question and I think it is true that Canadians are quite willing
to help each other, particularly in areas of need, when that help
actually delivers what it is supposed to deliver.
The President of the Treasury Board had some nice talk about the
need for rigorous control and verification and the need to fund
only programs with quantifiable results. I think that is what my
friend would like to see. However, that definitely does not
apply to the transitional jobs fund. In fact there is plenty of
evidence that this fund has been politically used and that it has
not created jobs—real, long term, sustainable jobs—which, as my
colleague pointed out, is what Canadians really need.
Again I say that the government can show, and we can all show
that we are serious about cutting waste and mismanagement. We
can show that we are serious about getting value for our dollar,
that when we invest money in job creation it actually produces
some results for the people who are supposed to be assisted.
Unless we can assure Canadians that there is value for our dollar
and that we have a process in place that says they spent this
money, they have got their money's worth, be happy, then we
should cut programs that are shown to be totally contrary to that
principle. That includes the $110 million for the TJF and the
CJF.
I hope my colleagues in the Bloc will support our motion to cut
that pork barrel program out completely so that money can go to
programs that really help Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak this evening on the
estimates, particularly in connection with grants and
contributions. I regret to say that I am opposed to this vote
for the grants and contributions program.
I am not saying that they are not good programs in themselves. I
believe it is important and essential for there to be programs to
help people in areas where there is a high rate of unemployment,
to give them the opportunity to get back on their feet and
improve their economic situation.
Unfortunately, in the case at hand, the problem is not that the
budget is too high, but it lies instead in the way the government
is administering that budget. Let us keep in mind the constant
scandal the government has been involved in for the past six
months.
1830
First, we came to realize that from the administrative
point of view they had lost control of $1 billion. We came to
realize that the treasury board directives that had been in place
previously were not being followed by Human Resources Development
Canada. What is more, they were full of holes.
Moreover, the President of the Treasury Board has already
admitted this. In early June, she had to do her homework over
again, and put other programs in place. But she has not
corrected what went on before.
We cannot vote in favour of these budget allocations, as long as
we have no guarantee that there will not be the same funny
business as there was in the last election.
In the situation before us at the moment, the Minister for
International Trade, the former Minister of Human Resources
Development, is responsible for the loss of government control
over the program of grants and contributions and for the use for
partisan purposes of the funds allocated to the transitional jobs
fund.
This minister, who is continuing along as Minister for
International Trade, is not accountable for his action as
Minister of Human Resources Development. However, in my opinion,
he is primarily responsible for the crisis that has befallen
Human Resources Development Canada.
He is getting away with it at the moment, because he does
not want to get to the bottom of things. They refused do conduct
an independent public inquiry.
So long as the government does not correct this situation, we
cannot give it additional votes for job creation programs.
Although the programs may be relevant and essential, we must be
sure that they operate within an acceptable context. But we have
seen no sign of this, either in the government's attitude to the
behaviour of the former Minister of Human Resources Development,
now Minister for International Trade, or in the behaviour of the
current Minister of Human Resources Development.
On the contrary, instead of assuming her responsibilities in the
fall of 1999, a month or two after her appointment, and saying
“I have just discovered a situation that must be rectified. I
will take a stand quickly and we will get to the bottom of
things”, she simply helped the federal government's operation
camouflage along.
No appropriate corrective action has been taken.
One may well wonder why it has come to this. The situation is
indeed tragic.
More than one dozen RCMP investigations on grant handouts and
the fraudulent use of the funds paid out have been opened to
public scrutiny. This was one serious situation that was
uncovered, but many others still under investigation, and there
are still unanswered questions.
A number of questions have been raised in the House, repeatedly,
in order to find out how $1.2 million in funding could have been
paid out to Placeteco and used solely to pay off a debt. It
created not a single job. In the past two months, the government
has never managed to produce a single invoice to prove what it
has claimed, although it was apparently so very simple to spend
the money.
Again today, the minister is telling us “Well now, those
invoices, you can get them through access to information”. If I
were accused of the same sort of thing that the government is
today, and if I had proof in my possession, I would make it
public and put out the fire right away.
They cannot do the same, because there are no invoices. How then
could they produce them?
Placeteco is not unique. There is Modes Conili Star as well,
another case the Bloc Quebecois exposed.
We acted more or less as if we were the investigators, and we
were able to demonstrate that an investigation was required. Now
the RCMP is looking into it, as a result of the questions raised
by the Bloc Quebecois, because indeed most of the jobs that ought
to have been created were merely transferred from one company to
another.
It is as though grants had been awarded to move jobs instead of
to create jobs. The investigation was initiated because of
questions asked by the Bloc Quebecois. There we have another case
of pieces missing and things not working right.
If there were only these cases appearing one after the other, we
could say that they were exceptions. But we discovered that,
during the period leading up to the last election, in 1997,
suddenly, 54% of all amounts earmarked for the Transitional jobs
fund over a three year period was spent. During the election
period, they spent the funds, especially in the ridings they
wanted to win.
In ridings represented by Bloc Quebecois members, 63% of the
funds were spent during that period. If this is not buying an
election, I do not know what is and how we could prove it.
There should be a public inquiry into this whole issue, so that
we can get to the bottom of things and see, for example, the
links between grants obtained and contributions to the Liberal
Party of Canada.
1835
It is a good question to ask and one the present government has
refused to answer fully. The Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development conducted an extensive study on the
administrative aspects. The Liberals were ready to look into
that thoroughly. They were even ready to pass the buck to civil
servants. But as far as the government's responsibility is
concerned, they systematically tried to avoid debate and
rejected witnesses that the Bloc Quebecois wanted to hear, so
that they would not have to answer questions.
Among the administrative problems that were found, some were
serious.
I have here a list of about 15 companies. I will not name all of
them, but I will name some.
In Newfoundland, Forest Renewal Sylviculture saw a project
approved in November 1998. Yet, as early as 1996-97, $2,164,500
in funding had already been paid out.
Take this other company, Powel Nestle Farms. In November 1998
also, funding was approved, while $30,000 had been paid out in
1997-98.
The same thing with one company after another, where final
approval was given a long time after the money was paid actually
paid out. How can this be explained? Often, a decision is made
based on whether or not they liked someone, during the election
campaign. One Liberal candidate would meet company officials and
say “Yes, I will handle this matter”. The civil servants were
left to look after the situation after the election.
They had to spend money without the authorizations having been
signed, which is totally unacceptable.
So, this is not a situation with some specific cases only. Funds
were, in my opinion, systematically used for partisan purposes.
This is why it is unacceptable to continue to vote supply for
grant and contribution programs, without knowing how the money
will be used.
Another election is coming up. If the same situation occurs
again, it will be totally unacceptable. We cannot in any way let
such a situation continue if we are to ensure a proper quality
of democratic life, a quality that Quebecers and Canadians
expect. This situation must be corrected.
We also see many problems in the ridings that the Liberals were
desperate to win. One such riding is that of the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister's riding is among those under suspicion.
Earlier, I mentioned Placeteco, which received $1.2 million.
That transaction is being condemned for many reasons.
First, the payments were made in violation of treasury board
rules. The establishment of a trust is against treasury board
rules. The trustee himself is in a conflict of interest
situation and no jobs were created. Moreover, there is no
evidence to establish whether the payment was fair and to
determine the overpayment.
When such a situation exists, it is very clear that light must
be shed on the whole matter. Otherwise, it undermines the
credibility of the elected member, in this case the Prime
Minister, and of the whole system, since funds were used for
partisan purposes.
And that is not all, a grant that had been awarded to a business
in the riding of Rosemont ended up in the riding of
Saint-Maurice, the Prime Minister's riding, without any jobs
being created. That business committed fraud at the expense of
another business that was expanding, and this case is now the
focus of an ongoing RCMP investigation.
So we have here several deplorable situations that must be
rectified, but the federal government is ignoring the problem.
The report issued by the human resources development committee
in June was a true reflection of the government's actions since
January: trying to hide the truth; systematically refusing,
through the minister, to answer questions; minimizing the
seriousness of the situation.
Let us not forget that the Prime Minister first talked about a
$101 problem. A few weeks later, it was $5,000. There are now 12
RCMP investigations, and amounts to be recovered are in the
hundreds of thousands of dollars. In the case of Placeteco alone,
we are talking about $1.2 million. I think we are faced with a
situation that warrants a thorough review.
This exercise should not have been performed only by the
committee. We needed to go beyond that, to go to an independent
public inquiry, as called for by all the opposition parties. This
would have helped give job creation programs the credibility they
are currently lacking.
The human resources development committee report says nothing
about the cases of fraud, late approvals, violations of treasury
board directives, political pressure, patronage, the partisan use
of public funds, attempts to hide information, the withholding of
information, the falsification of documents, the absence of
supporting documentation, and influence peddling.
1840
We are confronted to a serious situation, a tragic situation.
Since we are dealing with the business of supply, we cannot
simply authorize expenditures. We have to ensure that things are
done properly.
The president of the treasury board commented on this earlier,
in her speech. In terms of the principle itself, what she said
was interesting, except that she in no way remedied the past
situation and did not put forward any concrete solution to
ensure that we will not repeat the mistakes of the past.
Many mistakes were made. There have even been convictions.
Pierre Corbeil, for instance, was eventually convicted. Then,
there was another conviction in the case of Mr. Fugère, an
unregistered lobbyist, concerning an amount of $1,277,463. The
company from Rosemont we were talking about earlier received
$165,984. There was the CITEC case which was brought to light,
and the Force Group, again in the Saint-Maurice riding. There was
also Modes Conili Star, and the whole issue of jobs that were
transferred instead of created. A Liberal from Cape Breton is
also said to have received a $1.3 million contribution.
So, there are plenty of examples everywhere, several in the
ridings where the Liberal Party wanted to win in the last
federal election.
Given all these facts, I think it is important, before votes are
adopted, that we be well-aware of the impact of our decision.
Before supply is concurred in, the government will have to
assure us that the money will be properly spent.
When the government talks of new directives from treasury board,
why does it not provide for regular monitoring, month by month,
of the situation by elected officials, those who speak for the
people in this situation? I think the government refused to do
so in the past and is still refusing to do so.
In fact, the most negative thing—and I stress this—is that the way
the Canada jobs fund was used by the government allows people in
favour of the abolition of this type of program to argue, by
saying “You see, it serves no purpose to put this money in this
sort of program, because each time they do, it is wasted in the
end”.
I want to say that in my riding, in my region, the Canada jobs
fund was quite properly used. The projects people submitted
were correctly analyzed, and appropriate action was taken in the
end, because the fund was not established in an election period
and so was not subject to the pressures of an election period.
If, in the next election—and we are a few months away from
then—the same scenario is not to occur, the Canada jobs fund must
not become a tool to win elections for the Liberal Party of
Canada, but continue to be a tool to create jobs in areas of
high unemployment. There must be guarantees of transparency in
the use of this fund, which we do not see on the table at the
moment.
It is a great pity that the government has refused to shed more
light on this, that it feels free to come and ask us to adopt
these votes, when we do not have any guarantee that they will be
used properly. The best example of this perpetual state of
affairs is that there are plans to dismantle the Department of
Human Resources Development. I personally am in favour of such
a move.
I said at the beginning of the crisis, a few months ago, that
the Department of Human Resources Development was a bureaucratic
monster with a cancer that could only be cured if we got to the
bottom of things. Dismantling the department is an interesting
solution. I made this suggestion myself to the Standing
Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of
Persons with Disabilities when it came time to write the report.
However, there is another bridge that must be crossed, and that
is an independent public inquiry. And that, the government has
refused.
Today, we are looking at a situation where, even if the
department were dismantled, even if responsibility for these
grants and contributions programs were to be given to another
department, the management of grants and contributions would not
have been resolved. The last step has to be taken.
The problem has not been resolved, if we are to go by the
attitude of the President of the Treasury Board, who has issued
a new directive on the management of grants and contributions.
But what is there to say that these public funds will not be
used for election purposes? There is absolutely no guarantee
that they will not. There is no commitment from the government
to respond because it is not going to look into what went on
during the last election.
1845
If a public inquiry were able to analyze how they managed to
make use of the funding program systematically in ridings where
they wanted to win the general election, if we were able to get
to the bottom of the phenomenon of using these funds for
partisan purposes, then we could develop some barriers, set some
limits so that this did not happen again.
The government, however, refuses to go that far. It thinks that
it may still have a tool for winning over some ridings in the
next general election.
Well, my answer will be the same as last time. The voters of
Quebec and of Canada are not going to be taken in.
They will not allow themselves to be bought off by the federal
government, by the Liberal Party of Canada. They insist that
light be cast on what happens to their tax money, to what they
pay into the employment insurance fund.
If there is one thing to which our fellow citizens are entitled,
it is that the money they provide to the federal government for
the administration of all these programs is put to proper use.
That is why—and on this point I will conclude—it seems to me that
the Liberal government does not deserve our confidence as far as
administering public funds is concerned, and does not deserve to
be given a blank cheque for the authorization of funds.
Authorization will be given when we have the assurance that they
will be managed in such a way as to ensure maximum benefit and
transparency.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
before asking a question to the hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, I want to
congratulate him for his speech.
I want to tell him that it is extremely important to have a
person like him as the Bloc Quebecois critic on Human Resources
Development Canada.
This evening, my colleague stressed a very serious point when he
said that there was no transparency in that department.
It is a serious thing for my colleague to tell all the Canadians who are
listening to us that this government, with money that belongs to
them, was not transparent in the management of these programs.
But it should have been very transparent.
These programs were created to help the communities that need
them. My region benefited from the Canada jobs fund. I can say
that, in my area, the public servants who administer this program
ran a tight ship. It was said that this is money that belongs to
everyone and that it ought to go to those who need it.
But what is happening right now? People are suspicious. They ask
themselves if the things they hear are true. The government did
not act properly in the past and people wonder if it will do so
again in the future. If things were not right in the past, people
wonder if they are going to be penalized with the guidelines.
Will the government go too far in the other direction by
implementing excessive controls?
This is unacceptable. My colleague accurately described the
situation and I want to ask him what this government should do so
that Canadian taxpayers can finally regain confidence in the
government's management and transparency, which should be a given
on the part of a government that claims to be there to help, to
be full of compassion and to be receptive to the needs of the
public.
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Jonquière
for her kind words.
I believe this fight has been the fight of the whole Bloc
Quebecois team. I want to acknowledge the efforts ,particularly
of the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, the member for
Laurier—Sainte-Marie, our House leader, the member for Roberval,
the member for Quebec, the member for Rosemont, who exposed the
matter of the company being moved to the riding of Saint-Maurice,
members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development
and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, and more
specifically of the opposition parties, who presented a unanimous
report asking for an independent public inquiry.
1850
This is quite an accomplishment when parties such as the New
Democratic Party, the Canadian Alliance Party, the Bloc
Quebecois, the Progressive Conservative Party, members who
represent all sorts of trends in society, are asking for the same
thing. They felt it was fitting to have one position on the issue
of an independent public inquiry.
I know people in Quebec and Canada can rest assured there are
still members who are concerned and represent their interests
here in parliament.
Now for the solutions. I believe the government, or the Prime
Minister, should appoint as quickly as possible a new minister at
HDRC, someone who has not lost all credibility in the recent
chain of events. The new minister should be given a mandate for a
specific period of time to preside over the dismantling of the
department and launch an independent public inquiry to get to the
bottom of the whole situation.
The new minister should have a limited mandate, for six months,
and say “Yes, I am going to dismantle the department. Yes, we
are going to shed light on past events. I know that at the end of
this period, my mandate will be over. I might be given other
responsibilities, but I will have done what I had to do.” It
will not be as tempting to look out for friends of the party and
to avoid getting to the bottom of things.
I think we need these kinds of solutions. I think people expect
us to do these things in a parliament such as ours, to show them
that, unlike this government, we are not puppets of the Liberal
Party of Canada or those who fund that party, but that we are
simply here to work for the people of Quebec and Canada, for
those who elected us and who will re-elect us—and by us I mean
members of the Bloc Quebecois—in the next election.
We have waged this battle in a very open manner, using all the
parliamentary tools available to us. We will continue to do so
until we get all the relevant information in this matter.
In closing, I will give a concrete example.
As long as the government is unable to produce a single invoice
after having been asked to do so over a period of several
months, as in the case of Placeteco, we will continue to
maintain that this is proof of a serious lack of transparency in
this government.
People are expecting a drastic change in
direction, which does not seem to be happening right now. I
think the Liberal government will have to answer for that in the
next election, in a few months.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, in 1993 the people of this country threw out the
Conservatives and re-elected the Liberal Party because they
disagreed with the Tories always trying to cut spending that
helped people. They disagreed with the Tories for spending like
drunken sailors when it came to their friends and large
corporations. They disagreed with the Tories because of their
patronage-like approach and their big boosting of the Americans.
The Liberals on the other hand promised to kill the free trade
deal. They promised to eliminate the GST. They promised to
repeal Bill C-91, which would bring back protection for low cost
generic prescription drugs and reduce some of the costs to health
care. They promised to protect and enhance medicare. This is in
their red book of 1993.
Today we see in this debate the budget almost seven years after
the Liberals came into office. Did they end the free trade
agreement? No. Did they eliminate the GST? No. Did they kill
Bill C-91? No. Did they enhance and protect medicare? No. I
will get to that later. Did they do anything for education? No.
They carried out the policies of Brian Mulroney and extended
free trade, made billions from the GST, and extended the patent
drug protection to the international multinational drugs
companies for two more years. Just last week former Prime
Minister Brian Mulroney gave an hour and a half speech
congratulating the Liberal government for fulfilling all the
Conservative planks. Not one Liberal plank from 1993 was carried
out. Personally I would not want to be bragging about that.
1855
The Liberals went on a porkfest in the last six years, with
millions to their friends in Cape Breton although it ended up
with Mr. Dingwall losing his seat to the NDP. Instead of
spending millions on coal miners in Cape Breton they gave it to
their rich friends and their Liberal connections, and the coal
miners got crumbs.
The Liberals provided millions in tax cuts to the big banks
while western farmers were going bankrupt by the thousands and
were ignored. We see now, as we speak, on the agenda of the
Liberal government yet another bill before the House that will
give another $500 million in tax cuts to the banks that are
achieving record profits, quarter after quarter after quarter,
year after year after year, on their balance sheets. They have
also given millions to every living, breathing Liberal they can
find out west. There is not many of them, I might add.
Our health system is in critical condition. Literally hundreds
of questions have been posed of the government requesting it to
take some action on medicare. We have been asking it to take
some action to review the situation for the last three years now
and to reconsider its drastic cuts. In Saskatchewan alone it cut
$1.2 billion to the health care system. Saskatchewan has a
million people. That is $12,000 for every man, woman and child
that was not committed to health care as was previously promised
in the budget of 1993.
The Liberals are now sort of talking about doing something about
health care. The federal NDP has been fighting under the
leadership of the member for Halifax to get medicare fixed and to
have the Liberals pay some attention. Rather than spend $500
million a year in tax cuts to banks, perhaps they could give it
to the health care system where it is very much needed.
Premier Romanow in Saskatchewan spent the last two years trying
to convince the government to do a review. We have waited and
waited while he continued to hound the government. Then today he
said that enough was enough. He believes as we do in the NDP
that a family's health should not have to depend upon a family's
wealth. The Liberals and the reform alliance believe that a
family's health should have to depend upon a family's wealth.
That is a fundamental difference between the NDP and the right
wing parties of the Liberal and alliance coalitions.
The Premier of Saskatchewan today is taking the lead in defining
a new vision of medicare to meet the challenges of the 21st
Century. Premier Romanow announced a commission on medicare
which will be headed by health consultants and a former deputy
minister of health in two provinces, Ken Fyke. It will identify
challenges facing medicare, outline potential solutions, and
engage public and health care providers in a discussion of new
ideas.
Saskatchewan pioneered publicly funded, publicly administered
health care in Canada. Today Saskatchewan once again leads the
way in finding solutions to strengthen medicare and protect its
core values into the future.
I might add that in 1961 under Woodrow Lloyd the NDP brought
medicare to the country. We started in Saskatchewan. We funded
it 100% in Saskatchewan for six years before the NDP forced the
Liberal government of the day to adopt and embrace the health
care system and the medicare system for all Canadians. At that
time the funding for health care was 50:50. The provinces paid
50% and the federal government paid 50%.
In the last six years Saskatchewan has lost $1.2 billion in
underfunding by the federal government. It went to the banks,
the bond dealers and all the rich friends the Liberals want to
send the money to. The NDP, whose vision established medicare in
Canada and who made it work for six years before the country was
able to adopt it, is now leading the way in terms of this
commission.
Medicare faces many challenges today including new medical
treatments, rising costs, an aging population and shortages of
key health professionals. Identifying those key challenges will
be the commission's first task.
Second, it will recommend an action plan for the sustainable
delivery of health services across that province.
1900
Third, it will identify long term opportunities for reform that
will ensure a strong future for a publicly funded and
administered medicare system. The commission will deliver its
first report, a preliminary report, in six months and a final
report in the year 2001.
Earlier today in the House, the Liberal member for
Waterloo—Wellington, who is the chair of the health committee,
had the gall to talk about what a great job the Liberals were
doing on health care. He took personal credit for “redoubling
our efforts in helping to rebuild health care”. He said “I
want to make it happen. I want to make it work”. Let us review
their redoubling efforts.
I asked the member to define those words in a question and
comment period. I asked him to define for the House and
Canadians what redoubling their efforts in butchering health care
meant. The Liberals have cut $1.2 billion in health transfers to
Saskatchewan alone. They have cut $9 billion or $12 billion, who
knows what numbers are now, in health transfers to the rest of
the country. However, the member says they are going to redouble
their efforts.
We in Saskatchewan are worried because instead of losing $200
million a year in health transfers, we are faced with losing $400
million a year because of this Liberal member who chairs the
Standing Committee on Health for the Liberal Prime Minister and
the Liberal Minister of Health. They are going to redouble their
efforts and finish off the system. What do these Liberal members
do? They embrace bill 11 in Alberta which is meant to privatize
our health care system.
The member for Waterloo—Wellington should perhaps be sitting in
the back row of the House with his back against the wall. Even
his Liberal committee members do not like what he is doing. He
dictates in terms of what happens in committee. For three years
he has been asked to undertake a review of medicare. What has he
been doing? He does not even call a meeting of the health
committee. Medicare is in crisis. The Liberals are passing the
buck every time they get asked a question.
What does the reform party do? The reform party has not asked a
question on health care in the House for the last three years
until just recently. The leader of the opposition has never
asked a question on health in the this House. His number one
priority is making sure that the banks get more money, the oil
companies get more tax breaks and all the wealthy families in
Canada continue to be allowed to take their billion dollar trust
funds south of the border. We see a coalition here. It is the
Conservative-reform-Liberal-Alliance coalition. They are all
looking for the same sort of objectives to defend and enhance the
position of their very wealthy friends while ignoring the
concerns and priorities of Canadians.
Members may notice that we never heard the words health care
come out of the mouths of Liberal members between 1993 and 1997.
They never talked about it but boy did they cut it. Since the
NDP asked about health care back in 1997, we are starting to hear
them talk about it again. The NDP has been the only party that
has been raising this issue in the House with an action plan to
fix health care.
Those members do not care if the health care system is strained
at the seams. The Liberals do not care if the system is hurting
people. They do not care if nurses are being run ragged and
understaffed. They do not care if hospital employees cannot
cope. They just want the political credit and they would like to
assume to get that credit if they sink in some dough this fall
with the Prime Minister.
I want to sum up the Liberal's record in the last six years. It
can be summed up basically in four words: All pork, no vision.
Pork barrelling is all the Liberals want to do. They send money
to all their friends through HRDC. They give money to their
friends through the Western Economic Diversification fund. They
give money to all their rich friends, but do not look after the
needs of people in Canada. The Liberals will be called to task
come the next election for their approach to Canadians in the
last six years, which is all pork, all patronage and no vision.
The Liberals are so busy looking over their shoulders to see who
might be ready to pat them on the back—or stab them in the back
as the member for Waterloo—Wellington is probably worried
about—that they have forgotten to look forward. They have no
vision.
Let us talk about grain transportation. The Liberals spent
hundreds of millions of dollars fixing up rail lines in western
Canada and then they privatized the CNR. CNR then closed those
rail lines, ripped them up, and now the Liberals expect farmers
to not only pay more in freight rates, but they want farmers to
pay more to truck their grain to elevators further away on roads
that were never designed for the transportation of these heavy
products.
They also want farmers to raise more cash to buy back the short
line rail lines and fix them up again. They are just waiting for
the provincial governments to upgrade the roads. This is the
Liberal's vision for grain transportation.
1905
In my view it is an incredible situation. The banks are getting
$500 million a year more in tax cuts from the Liberal government
and the farmers in western Canada are getting destroyed roads
because of the Liberal plans and no rail lines to take their
products to market. By the way, the railways made a killing in
profits because the government subsidized their capital costs and
reduced their operating costs but they were allowed to hike rates
to farmers.
To whom did the railways gave big political donations? They
gave donations to the Liberal Party and, to shut the Alliance up,
they gave donations to the Alliance Party as well.
In Saskatchewan we have fewer rail lines, thousands of very
angry and almost bankrupt farmers, very wealthy railway companies
and probably the worst roads in Canada now because of the
downloading of transportation costs to the very farmers who do
not have any money because the government has abandoned them with
respect to grain subsidies.
I attended the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, France in 1995
with parliamentarians from all over Europe. They meet on a
regular basis. I went to the agriculture committee. I said to
them at that time that we were told by the Liberal government, by
the minister of agriculture at that time from Saskatchewan, that
Canada had to eliminate its transportation subsidies right away
because of the World Trade Organization legislation.
I asked those European parliamentarians what they were going to
do, because their subsidies at that time were three times the
rate of Canada's subsidies to farmers. Those parliamentarians in
the agriculture committee said to me “Under the WTO we have five
years to address the subsidy issue for farmers, but if you think
after five years we are going to sacrifice our farmers for the
sake of the U.S.A., you are greatly mistaken.”
Here we are five years later and the chickens have come home to
roost. This is a very sad situation.
On top of that, Canada's highway system is deteriorating
rapidly. The government collects nearly $5 billion a year in
gasoline and diesel fuel taxes. Does anyone know what percentage
of that money it puts back into roads? It is about 4.5%. Does
anyone know what they spend in Saskatchewan? They say that they
spend about $3 million over a five year period, but if one were
to stop on a dime on a Saskatchewan highway, one could bet that
dime would not be a federal dime building any highways. As a
matter of fact, the other 95.5% of the $5 billion is spent
elsewhere, not on transportation and not on highways.
This is quite embarrassing. We are the only country in the 28
the OECD countries that does not have a national highways
program. I see that the government House leader is acknowledging
that his government is the only government that does not have a
national highways program and it does not expect to have one. I
wonder if the minister might go to cabinet and put in a lobbying
effort on behalf of Canadians to rebuild our infrastructure on
our highways.
The rail lines used to be the ribbon connecting our country. It
is now the highway system and we do not have a highway system
that we can be proud of. I am not sure if Canadians have driven
through northern Ontario or British Columbia lately. Those roads
need money. They need twinning. They need lots of cash to make
them safe for people to travel on.
The government is so morally bankrupt that it cannot spend
public money getting the RCMP involved either in terms of looking
at what is happening with this patronage or with this port. No
wonder the government is starving the Mounties of cash, but it is
so devoid of vision that it puts legislation through the House of
Commons at the speed of light so its backbenchers do not have
time to think about it before the debate is over.
People think, “Thank goodness we have an official opposition in
the Alliance”. Our parliamentary system allows the official
opposition to take over government at any time if there is any
kind of an election that might support that. They think that but
when they would look over there what would they see? There is an
old saying in Saskatchewan that describes the alliance
conservative reform party, “Big hat, no ranch”.
Do members know what that means? It means those members think
they know what they are doing and what they are going to do, but
they do not have any idea of what they are really going to do.
However, they wear a big hat pretending they know what is going
on but they have no assets, no knowledge and no resources to
support holding up that hat.
1910
The reform alliance conservative party is the big hat with no
ranch vision. The Liberals are the all pork, no vision party. I
think Canadians are really worried about what is happening in the
country but they are not as worried as they might be because they
have the federal NDP to hold those two parties accountable for
their lack of vision and to provide them with a significant
amount of vision on every major policy in the country.
I have a number of things I would like to say, but in summary,
we have a very serious situation but we also have an opportunity
to correct the lack of vision or the poor vision of the Liberal
government. If the government would consider doing what Roy
Romanow and the NDP are doing in Saskatchewan, which is studying
health care and committing resources to make sure that we have a
universally accessible health care program, it would address the
very serious concerns of Canadians.
If the government introduced a national highways program and
spent some of the $5 billion that it collects in fuel taxes on
the road system, that would help to build our country and make it
stronger from coast to coast to coast.
If the government established a national agriculture program to
defend our farmers, in view of the subsidies farmers in other
countries receive, and not to match them but to provide even
one-fifth of the subsidies other farmers from other countries
receive, our farmers could be competitive.
We need more money for education. Does the bill before us
tonight address Bill S-9 that was before the House? No. Do
members know what Bill S-9 was all about? The reform alliance
conservatives and the Liberal Party in the last parliament passed
Bill S-9. It provided Canadians with tax deductions on Canadian
incomes for making contributions to U.S. universities and
post-secondary institutions. Meanwhile, post-secondary funding
in this country is being cut back. This is their vision. They
want to support and prop up the American institutions and they
are sacrificing Canadian institutions. University and
post-secondary institution students have, on average, $25,000 per
year of debt.
Why does the government not do what Ireland does and many
Scandinavian countries do? Why do we not have free tuition for
our post-secondary students? The government could phase this in
over five years. A 20% reduction every year for all students for
the next five years would bring them down to zero. High quality,
easily accessible and universally accessible post-secondary
education and equipping youth with the skills they need is what
built Ireland's economy.
I would like to go on because I have many other issues. This is
just the tip of the iceberg in terms of some of the visions that
the Liberals and the reformers do not have, and the vision that
the NDP has.
I thank all members for paying attention. I thank all ministers
who are here tonight for doing the job that they have to do in
the future, which is taking instructions from the NDP and
building a stronger country from coast to coast to coast.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member
opposite go on and on and I was surprised by some of his
comments.
For example, he made a comment that the government just blithely
accepted bill 11 in Alberta. I am not here to defend the
Minister of Health, but the member opposite knows that our
government has intervened in the strongest way with respect to
bill 11 and we will be responding over the next few months and
years to ensure that what Alberta is doing meets the principles
of the Canada Health Act.
The member also talked about the federal contribution to health
care. He said that the federal government used to contribute 50%
to health care costs in Canada. He must know that while we did
contribute 50% to certain prescribed health care costs, in no way
was it 50% of the total health care expenditures in Canada. In
fact, it related to hospital expenditures and certain medical
services covered under medical services plans but it was well
below 50%.
He also conveniently neglected to talk about the tax point room
in 1977 of 13 points of personal income taxes, which the
provinces asked for, and about 1 point of corporate income taxes
so that the provinces could move in.
The provinces moved into that tax room immediately. It was
totally transparent to the Canadian taxpayer. The federal
government stopped taxing by these percentage points and the
provinces moved in immediately to take that tax room.
1915
At that time in 1977 the agreement with the provinces and the
territories was that was in contemplation of the provinces and
territories spending that money on health care, post-secondary
education and social programs. There was no ambiguity about it.
The tax points were there for health care, social programs and
post-secondary education. There was not a lot of questioning and
debate at the time. It was very clear.
People who leave out the tax points that the federal government
vacated conveniently forget the huge contribution the federal
government is making still to health care and social programs
within Canada.
I would like to ask the hon. member opposite if he would like to
check his notes again. I am sure he would find that what I have
said is true and that the 50% was only certain prescribed
services and not the total health care expenditures within
Canada.
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Health Act
prescribes a minimum amount of health care services to every
province. It used to be that the federal government would fund
50% of that. The provinces always had the option of doing more
over and above that.
For example, Saskatchewan under Allan Blakeney and the NDP, in
the mid-1970s started a dental program for children up to 18
years of age through high school. That was free to every 18 year
old and under in Saskatchewan. It was administered through the
school system. It was a very good system. It drew raves from
around the world. People were coming from around the world to
study our system until the Liberal-Tory coalition of Grant Devine
bankrupted our province and shut down the program.
Yes, there is some relevance to the comment with respect to the
basic minimum requirements. However, the minimum requirements
now are no longer 50%. They are far less than that.
Nobody I have talked to in Canada, except the Liberal MPs who
are given their briefing notes by the Minister of Health,
believes that we are spending enough on health care. Not a
single Canadian believes that health care is funded adequately.
Not a single Canadian whom I have talked to believes that the
Liberal government is doing a good job in terms of health care.
Even the Liberal premier of Newfoundland, who is a former
Liberal member of parliament and a former minister of the Prime
Minister's cabinet, has gone on record as saying that medicare is
in crisis, that there is not enough money and not enough federal
attention being paid to it. We need a fix on medicare from the
federal government. Where is it and when is it going to come?
We need it now. Brian Tobin said this, a former Liberal MP and
cabinet minister and the current Liberal premier of Newfoundland.
The hon. member raised a good point, but again this is the
typical vision of the Liberals. They want to pass the buck. They
do not believe they should take responsibility for their actions.
When the manure hits the fan, they want to duck and blame
somebody else, even though its their fan and their manure.
As soon as something good happens, like the NDP in Saskatchewan
starting medicare and the dental plan for children, then the
Liberals want to take credit for it when they fought tooth and
nail year after year, to kill the medicare plan in Saskatchewan.
The Liberals did. The Liberals right here fought tooth and nail.
There were demonstrations in front of the legislative building.
Ten thousand people were shouting, “Don't give us medicare
because it is going to be too expensive. The doctors are going
to go. Don't give us medicare because the big multinational
corporations will not make as much money”. Whoops, we do not
want to say that. That is what they did.
We brought in medicare in spite of the Liberals leading the
charge across western Canada, spending thousands of dollars to
defeat Woodrow Lloyd's government in 1964 because he had brought
in medicare. What happened in 1964? Mr. Thatcher, the Liberal,
became premier. He got elected as a result of Liberals across
the country trying to fight medicare. What did he do? He
embraced medicare. Mea culpa. It was, “Oh, we were wrong a
couple of years ago and medicare may work”.
1920
An hon. member: It sounds like the GST.
Mr. John Solomon: We do not want to get the GST in there
because it was not as great as the medicare plan.
I appreciate the member's question and I look forward to more
interesting questions like that one.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I enjoyed the member's debate. He spoke about history
but he forgot that it was at a Liberal convention in 1919 that
the concept of medicare was born in Canada. He forgot that piece
of history. I acknowledge that it was introduced by Tommy
Douglas in Saskatchewan. The member did not even mention the
name of the Liberal prime minister, the Right Hon. Lester B.
Pearson, who introduced medicare for the whole nation.
He spoke about the lack of vision or poor vision on the part of
the government. He forgot the recent history of the national
forum on health chaired by the Prime Minister and the Minister of
Health at that time. He also forgot the history that in 1990-91
the Liberal Party introduced a resolution in the House to
preserve medicare. I remember vividly that the NDP critic at
that time said that my motion was facetious. He sided with the
Tories in trying to condemn the Liberal Party for medicare.
Speaking of history, let us remember history correctly. Does the
member not remember that in March the ministers of health met to
renew medicare, that they will be meeting again tomorrow and that
in September there will be a first ministers meeting on medicare?
Let us remember recent history.
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, that is the Liberal
version of history. The Liberals may very well have had some
kind of resolution in 1919 talking about everything under the
sun.
The medicare system was introduced in Saskatchewan in 1961.
Federally, Tommy Douglas and the NDP forced the Liberals to
introduce it in 1968. That is about 40 years. Are all the
promises the Liberals made to the country in 1993 to do away with
NAFTA, to abolish the GST, to put more money into health care, to
do better for education and to repeal Bill C-91, going to take 40
years? Because if it is going to take 40 years, you ain't going
to be around. That is the simple history of the House of
Commons.
The Liberals can claim to be everything to everybody, but in the
end they should hang their heads in shame for what they have done
to medicare and to the many hundreds of thousands of Canadians
who rely on medicare for their very existence.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I remind members to
address each other through the Chair.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
delighted to say a few words on this motion, a motion which is
from a motionless party, a party whose stock is not doing too
well right now and its tom is long gone. After a daylong battle
on the 24th, it will have to preston with the same group they
have right now. As we have always said, I guess if it walks like
a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. It will be the same
party it was previous to the reforming of Reformers.
But that is not what we are hear for tonight. We are here to
talk about the record of the present government. Today is an
extremely interesting and exciting day in Newfoundland. In this
honourable House yesterday, I had the privilege of asking the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans a question about the shrimp
stocks off the coast of Labrador and whether or not he intended
to bring in some new players to catch a stock that is rapidly
declining. Through the various departments of the government,
including fisheries and oceans and with heavy involvement, just
to be relevant, with HRDC, we saw the decimation of the
groundfish stocks in 1992.
1925
We thought we would have learned from that. Some of the funding
that has been channelled out over the last seven or eight years
we would think would have gone into fishery research. We did not
see any. We saw cutbacks. Instead of learning from the past, we
went ahead and made the same mistakes.
People say if we do not learn from history, we are doomed to
repeat it. Right now the government opposite is repeating the
mistakes of the early 1990s and we are doomed to suffer.
If we talk to any person fishing northern shrimp off the coast
of Newfoundland and Labrador, they will tell us that the shrimp
stocks are declining, that the size of the shrimp is smaller than
it was and the large shrimp seem to have either been caught up or
are moving away.
That is an extremely serious situation. What does the minister
do to alleviate this situation? Does he bring in more scientists
to study the cause of the problem? Does he reduce the catching
effort? No, he increases the catching effort. He does not
increase it to benefit the coastal communities, many of which are
without product. He does not increase it to benefit the three
major communities on the south coast of Newfoundland, Burgeo,
Gaultois and Ramea, where there are fish plants in isolated areas
that have not operated since the moratorium. These areas are
devastated with the inhabitants moving out on a daily basis.
Communities last year were promised crab stocks or access to the
offshore crab stock, the crab stock outside the 200 mile limit,
to keep their plants going.
That was put on hold when studies showed the crab stocks were in
hard shape and there is an overall reduction this year. That
quota could not be granted to the companies wanting to operate
those plants. They put their hopes on the fact that maybe they
could get some shrimp. Is there extra shrimp this year? Yes,
there is. Does it go to the south coast plants? No, it does
not. It goes to Prince Edward Island, which has not had any
attachment to the stock before. Why is it going to Prince Edward
Island? Simply because there are four Liberal government members
from Prince Edward Island who are holding on to their seats with
their fingernails, knowing that in the next election they, like
every other Liberal in Atlantic Canada, will be gone.
That is why shrimp went to Prince Edward Island. It is not
because the government has any great affiliation for Prince
Edward Island or its people, or any other part of Atlantic
Canada. It is simply because Liberals are trying to buy the
seats that they hold. It is to save their necks and their
fingernails.
There is another interesting side to the story. In almost every
battle and confrontation, five will always beat four if they are
any good. There are four Liberal members in Prince Edward Island
and five Liberal members in Newfoundland. The question is, how
did four beat five? The only answer is that the five must not be
as good as the four.
The unfortunate thing about this is that three of the members
from Newfoundland and Labrador represent districts that are
adjacent to the shrimp stocks. They are seeing somebody else
take the fish, bring it past their plants where their plant
workers cannot find employment, and outside the island.
One of the other members who is not adjacent to the shrimp
stocks represents the three communities I talked about where the
people are starving and looking for work. What happened when
they saw extra shrimp being allocated? They thought maybe they
would get some to re-open their plants as they should. But did
the member deliver for them? No he did not.
1930
If members are wondering why the people of Atlantic Canada and
the people of Canada generally are so cynical about the
government, that is just one example.
How is this going over in Newfoundland? That is an interesting
question. The main person in any province is the premier. The
Premier of Newfoundland is extremely upset with his colleagues
opposite. He is extremely upset with those people who sat with
him for years when he was a Liberal member and Liberal cabinet
minister.
In fact he was a Liberal cabinet minister in 1993-94 when the
vicious cuts were made to health care. I give him credit for
championing the health care cause at the present time. Maybe it
is because he wants national recognition so that he can take a
seat opposite again. However, he cannot forget that he was also
sitting there when the vicious cuts were made. He was also
minister of fisheries and oceans.
An hon. member: Captain Canada, he called himself.
Mr. Loyola Hearn: Captain Canada got his picture all over
the world because of an international event. He sent out the
coast guard to capture the Estai, a Spanish boat, bring it
back into port and seize its catch. Drastic action was taken so
nobody would ever dare catch a fish in our waters illegally
again.
He went down to New York and had his picture taken with little
tiny turbot to show how small the fish really were that were
being caught. Everybody said he was a wonderful minister, that
it was about time somebody stood up and took action.
The press fell asleep on what happened next. We gave the
Estai back to the Spaniards along with their catch. We
compensated them for their losses and gave them extra quota in
our waters. That is not a bad deal.
An hon. member: In the meantime Brian went back home.
Mr. Loyola Hearn: Of course the minister went back home,
became the premier of the province and, as the story goes, lived
happily ever after.
He is not living very happily these days because he knows the
word is out that come the next election he will not be the
premier. He might be the prime minister. As a Newfoundlander,
if he wants to be the prime minister I will be one who will
support him. The unfortunate thing is that the party he wishes
to lead will not be the party in power. Therefore he cannot be
the prime minister. Forgetting all that, he is very upset today
with his colleagues.
The minister of fisheries and aquaculture in Newfoundland, John
Efford, a well known name across the country, is quoted as saying
he is completely and utterly dissociating himself from his
federal Liberal brethren. The head of the fishermen's union in
Newfoundland-Labrador, Mr. McCurdy, is completely irate with the
decision of the minister. Representatives from industry have
said that there will not be a Liberal elected in Newfoundland in
the next federal election.
When I asked a question of the minister of fisheries yesterday
he should have listened. He should have gone back and talked to
his colleagues. Despite the fact that five members from
Newfoundland were not saying anything, he should have told them
that he would not let any more Newfoundland and Labrador shrimp
go to any extra entrants in the industry because the industry
cannot sustain it. If the quota is increased, which it should
not be, it should go to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador
who are adjacent to the resource and who so badly need the work.
We can understand why everyone is so upset. We saw our Liberal
colleagues huddling behind a curtain today when their own
minister made an announcement. I presume it was with their
blessing. Surely a minister would not announce it if the five of
them were against it.
I will get away from that issue as they are a number of other
issues. Because it is such a current issue it points out clearly
the way in which parts of rural Canada in particular are being
treated. My colleagues from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick know
only too well how their areas are being treated by the
government.
1935
Most of the emphasis tonight has been on health care because it
is the most important issue in the country. The state of our
health care is definitely the most important issue facing the
country. I will not repeat what I have said in the past, but my
province has been decimated by the cuts. The change in formula
in 1993 devastated Newfoundland despite the fact that our premier
was one of those who was here in cabinet and perpetrated the
cuts.
Newfoundland, with its declining population, suffers more than
any other province in Canada. Despite the fact that every
province is suffering because of the CHST per capita arrangement
Newfoundland is suffering more than any other.
There is great demand upon the few dollars that each province
has for the health care system in order to look after the sick
and the aged. As the provinces have to put more and more money
into the escalating health care budgets it leaves less money for
them to put into anything else. One of the groups suffering
tremendously is our youth. CHST funding is supposed to be for
health and post-secondary education, but nobody talks about
post-secondary education and nobody is interested in investing in
our youth.
Just a few days ago in Toronto, Credit Counselling Canada was
set up. The president is Mr. Fifield from Newfoundland. One of
its main objectives is to help young people who have a great
burden of financial debt as a result of borrowing to go to
school. Across the country from sea to sea to sea, students are
trying to better their lot. They know that we are in a
competitive market. They know that competition is not from the
person next door any longer. It is not the next community. It
is not the next town. It is not the next province. It is all
around the world. We participate in a global economy. When we
search for jobs we are competing with people from all over the
world.
Our young people have to be trained. They have to be confident.
They have to come out with an optimistic outlook on life. How
can they be trained if they cannot afford to be trained? How can
they be optimistic if they do go through the process of borrowing
for an education and come out of college or university with a
$30,000, $40,000, $50,000 or even $60,000 loan hanging around
their necks?
That is not the way to build the country. We have to build the
country on our resources, and our main resource is our young
people. In order to build on a solid foundation, it must be a
well structured and well educated one. It is up to all of us to
make sure that each and every child, regardless of where he or
she is born in this great country, has the opportunity to receive
a full and proper education without any encumbrances from the
outside, especially financially. We should be there to assist,
to promote and to encourage. It is something we are forgetting
to do.
Let us look at HRDC. I wish my friend with the boondoggle echo
was here, because there is a lot more to HRDC than the billion
dollar mix-up. I will not say it is a loss because HRDC says
that it was not a loss, that it was just poor paperwork.
1940
Can we imagine hiring an accountant who at the end of the year
said that everything was perfect except there was no paperwork to
cover a billion bucks? I am not sure how long that employee
would be working, but with the Liberal government it is okay. A
$1 billion mistake does not matter because most of the next year
can be taken to adjust it. That has happened during the past
year.
Members have asked why the JCP applications they submitted, or
their constituents submitted, were not being approved? Why are
Canada jobs fund applications, which used to be the old
transitional jobs fund, not being approved? Why are targeted
wage applications not being approved?
These questions go to the people who work in the local offices
of HRDC. When we call we may not get an answer. They are so
busy going back through the records to try to find where all the
money went that they cannot do the job at hand. Staff was caught
over and over and over. It is exceptionally hard for a handful
of people to try to do a job the minister should have done years
ago.
They have been told to go through the files, to crawl through
the drawers, to get into the closets and to go under the beds to
find the files with the missing information that will justify the
expenditures. Some of them off the record will tell us that it
was suggested to them that perhaps they could make a few changes
while they were doing it.
That is the kind of government we are looking at. These are the
kinds of examples we face. I know my time is up. If I had
another two hours or so I could touch on a few things that I
would like to say, but there will be another day.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from St. John's on his
very eloquent speech in the Chamber and on the contribution he
has already made on behalf of all Newfoundland and Labrador
citizens.
He has spoken with a very strong voice. I know he has a great
deal of credibility, particularly in the area of education. As
an education minister in his home province he was very intimately
aware of the challenges that face students. He obviously has a
continued grasp and understanding of the serious problem of the
brain drain that affects Newfoundland in a very significant way
and the country generally.
We are losing our best and our brightest to countries like the
United States and to Europe. We train and invest in young people
and then they leave to make a contribution to another economy, in
the hopes of maybe someday coming back when the employment
situation improves.
I wonder if the hon. member would elucidate further on what we
could do with respect to the brain drain issue that is facing his
province and facing my home province of Nova Scotia. We are
losing our best people before they have a chance to make the
contribution that will build the country that we all want to see,
to reach the potential that exists but somehow eluded our grasp
for many years.
We all recall that we were told the 20th century would belong to
Canada. We are not there yet. It does not look like we will get
there under the unsteady hand of the current government.
Could the hon. member tell us what is the first step we will
have to take? I am not only referring to the area of education,
but what can we do to bring about change that will help us reach
this potential?
Mr. John Williams: I know he will say that we should
elect a Tory government.
Mr. Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if people
heard the comment of my NDP friend about electing a Tory
government.
1945
I say to the gentleman that as we watch what is unfolding in
this very Chamber, when we see the way the government is going
downhill, as even he agrees, when we see the slippage of the NDP,
and when we see the fiasco that we call the reformed Reformers or
the Canadian Alliance, is it any wonder that people believe
there is salvation ahead and that the party which has always
stood for this great country—
An hon. member: The Liberal Party.
Mr. Loyola Hearn: —and made it possible for the Liberals
to brag about balancing their budget, is the Tory Party?
But that is only step one. What any elected party has to do is
this. First, we have tremendous resources which we must develop.
We must also do what Ireland and Iceland are doing, which is to
educate our young people so that we can develop these resources.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I understand that it is the maiden speech of the hon.
member for St. John's West. Therefore, I would like to
congratulate him and welcome him to the House.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. John Williams: While I do that, Mr. Speaker, I feel
rather unfortunate for the hon. member because he represents that
particular party down there in the corner. He talked about how
great it is. I am looking at vote No. 3 which will come up
tonight. The President of the Treasury Board wants to spend $905
million on Fisheries and Oceans. What does his party want to do?
It wants to cut $822 million out of that budget and leave less
than $100 million.
We know that the fishing industry in his part of the country is
experiencing serious problems. While we do not always agree and
sometimes seldom agree with what the government proposes, I just
cannot for the life of me understand why that party thinks that
cutting $800 million out of the fishing industry's support would
be beneficial to St. John's West.
Mr. Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member thinks
that this party or this member would think about taking a budget
that goes to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans—
Mr. John Williams: It is right here. Read the motion.
Mr. Loyola Hearn: The NDP has one major problem.
An hon. member: No, he is a Reformer.
Mr. Loyola Hearn: Oh, he is a Reformer. I was looking
behind him. Now I understand it. I fully understand it. The
Canadian Alliance, the reformed Reformers, do not understand
facts and figures.
If we read the papers of the last few days, looking at the facts
and figures, all of us would believe that every second person in
the country is signing up for the Canadian Alliance. About three
times the population of some communities are now members of the
Canadian Alliance. What is happening is this. They are getting
representatives of all the candidates running around, giving out
membership cards like chocolate bars. They are saying “Will you
have one of those? If you do, we will say that you are a
member”.
When we get to debate the motion, the hon. member will fully
understand what it is all about.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the hon. member who just spoke was
asked what we could do to attract and retain the best of our
youth. The hon. member did not answer the question, so I thought
I would comment.
Just two days ago the Canadian Health Services Foundation and
the Canadian Institutes of Health Research announced over a 10
year period $20 million in funding for 12 chairs for research in
the nursing and health services fields. This will create a
critical mass of researchers and will facilitate the network
among academics, students and those who deliver health services.
It will facilitate the transfer of knowledge to those who manage
our health care system.
Would the hon. member not agree that this initiative on the part of
the foundation and the institutes is truly a way to attract and
keep the best of our scientists, in this instance in the health
care and nursing fields?
1950
Mr. Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, the only concern I have
with what the member says is that the efforts they are making now
do not even come close to bringing it back to the 1993 levels
when this government took over.
If he wants to know what we can do for our young people, one of
these days I will send him over a good old Irish tape with a song
called the the Flight of Earls, which talks about the young
people 15 to 20 years ago leaving Ireland in droves to find
employment elsewhere. They were not giving up on their country;
they were giving up on the possibility of finding work. They
were saying “Some day we might be able to go back”.
Ireland believed in its youth. This government does not.
Ireland invested in its youth. This government is not investing,
except for paltry excuses of moneys that it announces time after
time after time. The government talks about all the money, and
they are the same dollars it is talking about.
Mr. Tony Ianno (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this
opportunity to rise in support of the supply bill. We are here
this evening to talk about government expenditures; the money the
government will spend this year on its many programs, services
and initiatives.
Before I continue I want to take this opportunity to clarify a
term that has been used. There has been much discussion about
government money. There is, in my opinion, no such thing as
government money. There are only public funds.
As parliamentarians we are well aware of this fact. The vast
majority of the funds that we discuss in this House are tax
dollars of our neighbours, colleagues and friends, farmers,
fishermen, high and low tech workers, small business persons and
others who work across this country from coast to coast to coast.
They have the right to expect their government to spend this
money judiciously, wisely and fairly. They have the right to see
that their tax dollars are making a difference and improving the
standard of living in their lives, in their children's lives and
in the lives of all Canadians.
The Government of Canada is committed to investing in programs,
initiatives and services that Canadians want and need. This
commitment is reflected in the supply bill. The funds for which
we are seeking approval in the supply bill are essential to our
ongoing efforts to improve the lives of all Canadians and to
deliver good government to all Canadians.
It is realistic to state that these funds will have an impact on
each and every Canadian in some tangible way. This money will
help continue the fight to make sure that our accomplishments are
achieved; accomplishments in continuing to make our streets
safer, preserving our environment, or furthering the development
of our programs which help the less fortunate.
We are investing in numerous initiatives. Why? Because each
contributes to a common goal, the goal to provide Canadians with
the high quality programs and services they need and expect in
their daily lives. These are the investments that continue to
make us the number one country in the world with the United
Nations rating systems for literacy, distribution of wealth,
education and the many forms of tolerance and compassion that
make us who we are.
Yes, I will echo my colleagues' sentiments when I stress how
important it is to ensure that these important investments are
being made responsibly. It is not enough for this government or
any government to simply say “Trust us”. We know the
importance of having clear accountability in place. We also know
that having the appropriate control of frameworks and regulations
is essential to ensuring that funds are being administered in a
way that best serves the public good.
1955
We must ensure that every dollar goes a long way and that we
leverage it to get better results, such as the very successful
Canada infrastructure program for which the member opposite has
commended the government many times.
Mr. Speaker, as you, my colleagues and most Canadians know, we
have those frameworks and regulations in place. They are in
place and they work.
It is the framework and smart spending that allows for all of
these improvements in the daily lives of Canadians. We know that
the job is not complete. We know that there are further
improvements to be made and that is why we need to continue to
build on our success.
I welcome this opportunity to elaborate on some of the comments
my hon. colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, made a
few moments ago. I would like to focus for a few moments on the
Treasury Board Secretariat's revised policy on transfer payments
which came into effect on June 1, 2000.
The revised policy is important to strengthening the management
of public spending. The member opposite has helped in the
process of formulating the new policy that the government has put
forward and has commended it.
The origins of the revised policy can be traced back to the 1997
report of the independent review panel on modernizing
comptrollership in the Government of Canada. This report
recommended that the Treasury Board Secretariat establish
government-wide administrative standards and policies. As a
result, we started a review of our policy on transfer payments,
particularly as it related to grants and contributions.
That review began in the summer of 1999. It built on the
panel's recommendations. A working group was struck, composed of
both the departmental and central agency representatives. The
idea was to obtain broad input and balanced viewpoints. The
working group met to review, provide input and ultimately
facilitate the drafting of a revised policy.
The objective was to develop a policy that would meet
departmental needs while fulfilling the government's requirements
for accountability, managing for results and ensuring responsible
spending. This policy meets the objective.
Some of the departments involved in providing input to the
revised policy included Health Canada, Indian and Northern
Affairs Canada, Industry Canada, Natural Resources Canada,
Environment Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Western
Economic Diversification, Canadian Heritage and Finance Canada.
I would like to note that feedback on an earlier draft of the
policy was provided by the office of the auditor general, which
fully supported its direction. The revised policy has a single
but very important objective: to ensure the sound management of
and control over accountability for grants and contributions.
The policy on transfer payments applies to all Government of
Canada departments and agencies, as well as to all transfer
payments, including those between the Government of Canada and
other levels of government. While it does not apply to crown
corporations, several are using it as a guide to develop their
own policies. This is a model that is being copied far and wide.
This is how we continue to reinvigorate government and its
processes to ensure Canadians get the government they deserve.
Aside from what the President of the Treasury Board has already
explained from her overview of some of its most important
features, let me elaborate a little on certain points.
The revised policy affects grants and contributions. In this
respect it requires several things of departments. As my
colleague has pointed out, it requires departments to guarantee
that measures are in place to ensure due diligence in approving
payments. Departments must also ensure diligence in verifying
eligibility and entitlement whenever a new contribution program
is being established or renewed.
Second, it requires that departments have a results based
accountability framework in place. This framework must include
performance indicators, expected results and outcomes, as well as
evaluation criteria to be used in assessing the effectiveness of
any given program.
2000
Third, the revised policy requires that departments recommend
specific limits to federal assistance in instances wherein
recipients are receiving funding from multiple levels of
government, including other federal sources.
Those are all positive measures and it does not stop there. The
revised policy also adopts the principle that funds are provided
only at the minimum level required to achieve the expected
results and not in advance of need. In addition, eligibility
criteria for assistance must be predetermined, made public and
applied on a consistent basis.
Finally, the programs must be formally renewed through treasury
board once every five years, or more often should it be deemed
necessary. This ensures ongoing relevance and effectiveness.
Individually these are all important steps forward. Collectively
they represent considerable progress. These measures will make a
difference for Canadians. They will help ensure that funds are
administered responsibly and that Canadians can have confidence
that their money is being well invested by their government.
Of course I know that some questions remain. I have had several
colleagues ask me about how this policy affects programs that are
already in existence. There are three important ways.
First, effective June 1 as I mentioned earlier, departments must
commence a review of their transfer payment management regimes to
ensure they reflect all aspects of the revised policy.
Second, agreements entered into on or after June 1 should
respect the principles of the revised policy. A three month
transition period is provided however before new agreements must
reflect all the revised policy requirements. This is only fair.
It is a recognition of what is realistic from an administrative
point of view.
Third, departments must obtain treasury board approval to
replace or renew the terms and conditions of existing transfer
payment programs by March 31, 2005.
The government has introduced some broad though necessary
changes. Many of the requirements contained in the revised
policy, such as the need for results based accountability and
risk based audit frameworks, are already in place since they were
implicit in the old policy.
However there is likely to be an initial workload increase as
departments work to ensure existing management control frameworks
are adequate and appropriate. They will also have to make sure
that they have the data required to evaluate programs and to
report to parliament.
For renewals as well as for new programs, departments will need
to provide fuller proposals when coming to treasury board for
approvals. This will no doubt require greater attention to
detail and as a result, more work for departmental staff. This
is essential however. Treasury board needs to be provided with
the necessary assurances that the programs are sound.
Clearly there will be some initial expenses but I believe that
these expenses will be relatively inconsequential compared to the
savings we will ultimately enjoy as a result of more efficient
and effective management of funds.
Let me conclude by once again stressing my emphatic support for
this supply bill. It is good and necessary legislation. It will
allow the government access to essential funding, funding for
programs that are important to Canadians.
The government has a clear vision. We have a clear appreciation
of what Canadians want. That is why our policies have helped
produce the lowest unemployment rate in over 25 years. It has
enabled us to deal with a surplus and in effect have more
efficient and effective government.
As the policy of transfer payments demonstrates, we have the
mechanisms in place to ensure that funds are administered
effectively. Together these elements will ensure that Canadians
get truly exceptional value for their tax dollars.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
2005
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. Following more consultations, I think
you would find consent for adoption of the following order. I
move:
That the Subcommittee on Organized Crime of the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights be authorized to travel to
Toronto and Newmarket, Ontario and to a Canadian port, and that
the necessary staff accompany the subcommittee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the motion as presented by the deputy government House leader. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion as presented?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
MAIN ESTIMATES, 2000-01
The House resumed consideration of Motion No. 1.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I was listening to the speech by the Parliamentary
Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board. He was
basically reiterating what the president had already told us
about the improvements they are going to be implementing. I have
two questions.
The first is what assurance do we have that treasury board is
going to police these new rules to see that they are implemented?
We all know about the billion dollar boondoggle at the HRDC
camp. It was because the rules were there but ignored that all
this happened. It is fine to introduce new rules, but if they
are just rules on paper and nobody says they must be followed,
then what is the point?
The second question I have deals with grants, not contributions.
Treasury board has a rule that when it hands out money in a
grant, the person receives it but it will never audit the
recipient to find out if it was spent in accordance with the
grant.
Millions and billions of dollars in grants are handed out every
year. They are sometimes for old age security which is a grant.
We do not want to worry about auditing that. They get it and
they spend it the way they want. All kinds of grants are given
out, such as $145 million to the millennium fund to celebrate the
millennium using Canadian taxpayers' dollars virtually all of
which was a waste.
However, treasury board does not even know after it wrote the
cheque whether the money was spent in accordance with what the
applicants said they were going to do with the money. Treasury
board says it does not want to audit after the fact to find out
if they actually spent the money or put it in their pockets.
Those are two simple questions to ensure that Canadians can
expect value for their money because quite often that is not
happening.
Mr. Tony Ianno: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to
get a question from the hon. member considering that he helped in
giving direction to some of the policies. The hon. member has
commended the President of the Treasury Board and the government
for doing such a great job in listening to him and implementing a
great policy. That is step one.
What we have done is taken some of his ideas, along with some of
the ideas that we already had in place, to ensure that there is
effective expenditure.
This government understands it is important that we spend
taxpayers' money effectively, unlike the past government of which
I am sure the hon. member was a supporter, even though he may not
have had a membership card. They had a philosophical
understanding on that side to the point where they were actually
trying to align themselves. They get confused the odd day but
generally speaking, they are on the same wavelength.
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order with regard to the subject of relevance here. I had two
specific questions on the process of implementing new policy and
now we are on to membership in political parties.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sure the
learned parliamentary secretary is about to make the link. We
are all fascinated.
Mr. Tony Ianno: Mr. Speaker, I am. The member gets all
hot under the collar when we talk about the alliance between the
Conservative Party and the reformed Reform Party.
Basically what I was getting at was that party of the past that
he may have supported was in a deficit of $42 billion and it
helped the debt rise tremendously. Canadians basically rewarded
that group with a cleaning out of the system.
We have put in place many things to ensure that our dollar is
very effective and that we are spending the way Canadians want.
For the last seven years they have continually said that they
agree with many of the policies we have put in place because we
are looking at the dollar as if we were entrepreneurs. In a way
we are trying to ensure that we get multiple returns from a small
business person's dollar.
2010
I alluded to the Canada infrastructure program which all members
on the other side have commended the government on. We took a
federal tax dollar and multiplied it sometimes three to four
times to ensure that many of the municipalities which Canadians
live in have the required infrastructure to ensure they have
clean water, a safe environment and many other things so that the
standard of living of Canadians can continue to improve.
The member also asked a question about the $145 millennium fund.
I must mention one in my riding, the Evergreen Foundation. It
has allowed for many schoolyards and unused urban areas to be
regenerated. It has encouraged Canadians in urban centres from
coast to coast to coast to give us back the green, to help us
with the environment that we need for our daily living.
The government has been doing a lot of good work to ensure that
Canadians benefit in many ways. We will continue to do that with
the support of the hon. member on the other side.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for
Wild Rose.
I am pleased to debate about the government spending some $50
billion. Of course money has to be spent in order to run the
government.
I want to make a comment with respect to the Liberal member who
last spoke. He was trying to attribute a $42 billion deficit on
this side of the House, especially to the Canadian Alliance. That
is ridiculous.
I remind the member that I was 11 years old and in grade school
when the Prime Minister was first elected to the House. That was
the year there was any significant debt. That is when the debt
started to skyrocket. Half of the $600 billion can be attributed
to the Liberal Party of Canada under Prime Minister Pierre Elliot
Trudeau. That is when it started. The Canadian public was sick
of that debt and elected the Tories.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, I would ask to have a little
bit of respect from that side of the House, please.
An hon. member: He does not deserve respect.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I think hon. members
have to give and take. There has been a fair amount of giving
and I think this is the taking time. If the hon. member for
Saanich—Gulf Islands needs me to admonish the other side of the
House, I would be glad to do so, but the member has never needed
it in the past and probably will not need it in the future.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, I will continue, but just
because the decorum in this House gets down to the bottom of the
trough does not mean that members have to participate or support
it. Hon. members can actually try to show some decorum in this
House, Mr. Speaker.
I want to talk about the $50 billion that is frustrating
Canadians. What is frustrating Canadians is the lack of
accountability and how the government spends money and the tax
increases that have been forced upon them. There has been one
hidden tax increase after another. It is the taxpayers who
actually got the deficit to zero. It was not the government. It
is the sneaky, hidden tax increases that have frustrated
Canadians across the country.
In the last year in the House of Commons we have started to see
the real skeletons of the Liberal Party of Canada come out of the
closet. How the Liberals spend money is being exposed.
We have seen billions of dollars go out to friends and
contributors of the Liberal Party of Canada. There is absolutely
overwhelming evidence. It is all documented. It has been
revealed in the House that people who have received significant
grants, most important, in the Prime Minister's own riding, and
what have they done? They have turned around and donated part of
that grant money straight back into the Liberal Party. If this
happened in the private sector it would be called fraud, it would
be called criminal, it would be called corruption and the people
would be thrown in jail, nothing less.
2015
Let me show the arrogance of all this. Day after day we watch
the government members not try to correct it, laugh at it, make
fun of it and ridicule it. They are not laughing at us. Yes, we
can see them, but they are looking into the cameras behind me.
They are looking to the Canadian people. They are making a
mockery of the whole system. They are laughing at the Canadian
people as these grants happen day after day in the hundreds of
millions of dollars. The grants and contributions are
ridiculous.
This has caused an incredible burning passion in the Canadians I
speak to no matter where I go, whether it is in western Canada,
in Atlantic Canada, in Ontario or in Quebec. It happens
everywhere. People are very frustrated. We have to change that
and that is why we will be voting against this bill, the $50
billion.
In the February budget that the finance minister brought in, the
government increased the grants and contributions in the fiscal
year 1999-2000 by $1.5 billion. That is how much money is in its
own government documents for grants and contributions but health
care supposedly only receive $1 billion. It is absolutely
unacceptable.
It is time to bring in accountability. We have to depoliticize
the process. These grants and contributions are going out to
people who are personal friends of the Prime Minister and who, as
we have heard day in and day out in the House, have absolutely
incredible histories.
What I want to emphasize is that the Canadian people are looking
to us to bring some respect, integrity and honesty back to this
institution so that they will get value for their taxpayer
dollars. People want to see a truly national health care system,
whether they get sick in Newfoundland, in Winnipeg or in my home
province of British Columbia, that they know they are going to be
treated and that they are not going to have to die on waiting
lists. Our health care system is an absolute state of chaos
right now.
This is happening in my own riding. In Sidney where I live, and
in the greater Victoria area, they have had to make changes. They
have had to close down health facilities that have been there for
a long time. They have had to close the intensive care unit for
children level 2 at one of the only two children's pediatric
centres in British Columbia. When I asked the CEO at the
Victoria Regional Health Board why that was happening, he said
that it started because of one reason, no money and the lack of
funds. Those critically ill children will now have to be
airlifted to Vancouver.
This is happening over and over again. The frustrating part is
that it does not need to be that way.
The Liberals stand up and laugh at the grants going into hotels
and golf courses in the Prime Minister's own riding. They make a
mockery of it. They think it is a big joke. Well, it is
completely unacceptable. It is time to bring change to this
institution.
The last government that did this was the Tory government in the
early 1990s. The Tories became arrogant and believed that they
were above everyone who brought them here. They forgot about the
people who voted for them. They put themselves on a pedestal so
high that they thought they were untouchable. Well, the Canadian
people judged them in October 1993 and they were not re-elected.
The Canadian people threw the federal Tories so far that it was
not even funny. They took a government with 211 seats, one of
the largest majorities in the history of Canada, and brought them
down to two seats. Why? It was because the Tories became
arrogant, unaccountable and showed no respect for the Canadian
taxpayer.
2020
This is happening today but 10 times worse. If Canadians think
what happened then was bad, they have not seen anything yet. It
is pitiful what has gone on in here.
What is really pitiful is the Liberals' reaction to all this.
They stand up and make a mockery of question period. They laugh
and make jokes and do not give answers in question period. We
heard the Minister of Veterans Affairs, when he stood up in the
House in the last two days, just make a big joke about this.
I am happy to talk about anything they want, and we will let the
Canadian people judge. They can continue to laugh, make jokes
and yell across the House but their day is coming. As we all
know, we are less than a year away from an election. We will
stand on our record and they can stand on theirs. Their record
is a health care system that has disintegrated and is in a state
of chaos. We have rising taxes and personal family incomes and
disposable incomes have gone down. Frustrated Canadians have
watched unaccountable grants go up. That is their record, and
they cannot step away from it because there is too much evidence
and hard facts.
I look forward to the next federal election when the government
will be judged and we will see who gets the last laugh, the
taxpayer or the government.
Mr. Tony Ianno (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to
listen to the hon. member on the other side, who got very
sensitive, taking into account that he is supporting the person
who was an assistant to Brian Mulroney, and who, of course, must
have advised him on how to do government. He is protesting that
the Conservatives were voted down from 211 seats to two, but he
is basically knocking one of the three people running for the
leadership of his new party who was an adviser to Brian Mulroney.
I do not understand how that works. I am curious. He despises
the arrogance to which he was referring. He joined the new
reform party, but the new reformed reform party is now trying to
choose someone whom he detested.
I am trying to figure out how he reconciles that. What has
changed? Does it have anything to do with the mindset that the
new party actually is dealing with when the pension reform is
taken into account, and things that its members fought very hard
about until they realized that in reality many of the things that
they had in their minds were really figments of their
imagination?
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, I want to state that I was
elected on June 2, 1997 as a member of the Reform Party of
Canada. I was as very proud of that then as I am today, and I
will be forever. I have no shame being a member of the Reform
Party of Canada. It brought a lot of influence on the
government. I am awfully proud of that fact. I am very proud
that the former leader of the official opposition, who is now a
candidate, had the vision to move the party forward and offer
Canadians a choice. I am proud that he was able to do that.
The member has asked me about one of the candidates, Tom Long.
Let me tell the member a little about him. I am quite proud to
tell the member about the $50 billion that he would not sink down
a toilet. Was he involved in the 1984 election when the federal
Tories were elected? Yes. Did he come to Ottawa after that
election and work for Brian Mulroney personally? Yes.
Mr. Long told me that after what Pierre Elliot Trudeau did in
the House, that he would have done anything to get him out. I
want say on the record that Mr. Long was employed by former Prime
Minister Brian Mulroney's office for 18 months. Eighteen months
after he arrived in Ottawa he resigned for for his own personal
reasons. I believe he wanted to see certain things done but he
left 18 months after he got here and went to work with the
provincial Tories.
As we were building the Reform Party of Canada in the early
1990s, he was out there working side by side with the provincial
Tories in Ontario building a parallel track. They have been very
successful. I think they should also be applauded for what they
have accomplished. They are one of the first governments that
made promises and stuck to them. They did not get sidetracked.
They did not succumb to the pressure. Did they make mistakes
along the way? Yes, they did, and they are fixing those now, but
they kept their promises. They promised to cut—
2025
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry but I
need to interrupt. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the
finance minister.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is picking up on the
point made by my colleague for Trinity—Spadina.
In fact, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands I think for a very
short period of time was supporting some Ontario cabinet minister
but that only lasted a couple of weeks. I am not quite sure
about his overall sense of judgment.
I am flabbergasted that the member would stand here and have the
nerve to talk about respect and honesty. He draws the example of
the grants and contributions being upped in the budget to, I
think he said, $1.3 billion, drawing the conclusion or the
inference that the money is for HRDC, when he knows full well or
he should know that $900 million of that $1.3 billion is for the
Canada Foundation for Innovation and the Genome project where we
are investing in new technologies and innovation.
I could go on but I will give the member a chance to respond.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, his number is not quite
accurate, it is $1.5 billion. The point that I made was that in
this fiscal budget, the grants and contributions of all
departments went up $1.5 billion. How much did health care get?
It got $1 billion. There is something wrong with that when our
health care is in the state of chaos that it is.
This only exemplifies the point. They want to talk about
everything else but the budget and the $50 billion that we are
supposed to be talking about. Again, we need to bring back
respect and accountability.
The grants that have gone out under HRDC are just the tip of the
iceberg. We know that is happening in all kinds of departments.
The system is fatally flawed and it needs to be fixed. I look
forward to the day when we are going to bring about those
changes. I will stand on my record and my party's record to the
voters of this country. We look forward to that in the coming
months.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak tonight to these
estimates, to the spending of money. I would like to be able to
speak about the great move in tax reductions but we do not see
that. We see a lot more spending. Spending is the topic that is
on the minds of a lot of Canadians today.
I remember arriving here in 1993 and hearing the Liberals say
that they were going to do something about the million children
that are living in poverty. We are now in the year 2000, and
they are still saying that they have to do something about the
million and a half children living in poverty. It sounds to me
like something is wrong here. They went backwards. They are
going the wrong way. In 1993 we had a million children living in
poverty. Now we have a million and a half children living in
poverty and they want to pat themselves on the back and applaud
the great things they have done in this category.
When I arrived in 1993 they were quite upset about the poverty
and the lifestyles that existed on some Indian reserves. I have
seen most of these reserves. I have seen the ones that are
really good and I have seen the ones that are really suffering.
In 1993 we said that we need some accountability. The Liberals
said that they were going to address that issue. They said they
would take care of the situation. We are now in the year 2000
and we have coalitions building out there trying their best to
get some accountability to make it happen, but it is getting
worse.
My, my, my, what a track record. It would take hours to talk
about the Liberal spending that really makes a lot of sense, like
hanging dead rabbits in a museum.
An hon. member: In a tree.
Mr. Myron Thompson: I am sorry, in a tree. That does
make a big difference.
Now that I am a senior citizen and at that magic age, maybe I
would like to spend a little time talking about the money they
spent on a committee to study seniors and sexuality. My that
makes me feel good now that I am an old fella.
2030
I wonder what it really costs Canadian taxpayers to send one of
our famous stars to perform in the film Bubbles Galore
which was authorized by the Liberal government. We could go on
and on and on to talk about wasteful spending.
We could talk about the millions of dollars going into wonderful
ridings, most of which are Liberal ridings, particularly
Shawinigan, to build new fancy hotels for the sake of job
creation. The Liberals are spending millions creating hotel
beds. In the meantime they are spending nothing as we close
hospital beds. What kind of priority is that? Maybe the million
dollars to build a fancy hotel in Shawinigan would have been
better spent in an area that could use more help with hospitals.
I often wonder where their priorities are. We brag about the
freedoms we have in Canada. We have the freedom of speech. We
have the freedom of expression. We have many freedoms, but who
is responsible for them? It is soldiers. It is not reporters
that gave us freedom of the press. It was the soldiers. It was
not orators that gave us freedom of speech. It was the soldiers
who put their lives on the line to make sure that all the
freedoms we enjoy as Canadians were in place.
Yet look at what is happening in the department of defence. The
way they treat that body of people is a disgrace. It is
underequipped. We read about them being in soup kitchens. While
the Liberals continually pat themselves on the back about the
wonderful job they are doing, our defence is becoming the
laughing stock of the world. They have no respect for the
soldiers who made all these things happen. It was not the
politicians. It was not Trudeau. It was not Mulroney. It was no
one but the soldiers. When they start respecting the people of
this land to the extent that they ought to, maybe we will see
some sensible decisions made with regard to spending.
I could look at the areas for which my friend from
Okanagan—Shuswap and I are responsible and what is going on in
our penitentiaries. I am absolutely amazed by the amount of
money they spend looking for dangerous offenders who walk away
from a golf course. They are sentenced to penitentiary and when
they are out playing golf they walk away.
Let me talk about one who walked away. He was a bank robber. He
went to Edmonton and found himself a nice young lady whom he
viciously raped. I am sorry for the incorrectness. He sexually
assaulted her, viciously. Now a big search is on to find this
guy because of decisions made by a government that has no
priority for the safety of Canadians and allows those kinds of
things to happen.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Oh, come on.
Mr. Myron Thompson: I hear the hon. member. A dangerous
offender walked away from a golf course and he says “Oh, come
on”. He should go back to the office and smell some more cork.
Here is the laughingstock of it all. The Liberals came out with
a report on recidivism. This guy will not be included in the
recidivism count because he was a bank robber and when he went
out again he became a sexual assaulter. He is not a repeat
offender because he did not commit the same crime. This
information is fed into Statistics Canada, out come the reports
and away they go.
It is all a bunch of baloney. Every day people continually ask
me if I feel safe in Canada. No. I am asked if my wife and I
like to take walks in the park. Yes. I am asked if we do. No.
When asked why, I say that we like to look forward and see what
we can see rather than having to watch over our shoulders to see
who is coming.
2035
What does Correctional Service Canada spend its money on? What
does it do? Let us take a look. Some $78,000 were spent on
millennium calendars that were sent to penitentiaries. I went
into several penitentiaries after the calendars were sent and we
did not find one calendar hung up in any cell because they did
not want them. At one penitentiary they boxed them all up. We
brought them back here and delivered them to the solicitor
general. I told him that the guards, the penitentiary people and
the inmates said they did not need the calendars. For inmates to
have calendars it just made the days longer.
Then the commissioner came up with the bright idea of spending
$4 million on a plane for Correctional Services Canada. He did
not have to spend that much. He could have spent $2 million on a
used one. I do not know what they ended up getting but I know
they got it. It is my understanding that it was such an
embarrassment that they are not using it.
Mr. Darrel Stinson: They haven't flown it yet.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Isn't that wonderful? They spent
$200,000 on a task force on security and $70,000 for
international travel by the commissioner in one year. They have
a plan in place to get more and more inmates into the
communities. They are reducing the number of inmates. The cost
of running the system has gone up tremendously. Expenses to
operate penitentiaries have gone up but there are less inmates.
It does not make sense. Should they not be going down?
What about the correctional officers, the professional people
who work on the frontline, who put their necks on the line every
time they go to work? They have not seen a raise for ages. There
was a time when they were fairly comparable to the RCMP and other
police forces. Now they are a way down.
When they ask for such things as vests that will protect them
from knife wounds, the answer is no, that there are no funds.
They ask for protective equipment when they make their rounds.
They would like to carry more than just a flashlight in dark
corners in the event they run into problems. When they ask for a
little better backup, the answer is no, that there are no funds
available.
There is an easy solution. The commissioner should be fired and
a guy put in there who will do the job. No. He follows fuzzy,
touchy-feely, good Liberal stuff. It is all a bunch of nonsense.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member speak
and I have to concur with everything he said. I fully agree that
we like to say Canada is a nice country to live in, that it is
the best in the world.
As the hon. member mentioned in his speech, more and more the
elderly talk about a fear of going down to the corner grocery
store at night even to pick up a loaf of bread or a quart of
milk. During my travels to schools I hear that even children are
feeling unsafe going to and from school. Some parents are now
taking their children to and from school themselves. Has the
member heard such things during his travels?
Mr. Myron Thompson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I certainly have
heard those very same things. I visit schools quite often. They
ask me to speak on justice issues, particularly the Young
Offenders Act. I ask most of them if they are fearful going
downtown or going back and forth from school. The majority of
them are quite frightened. They like to travel in groups as a
safety factor. In some cases they are fearful in their own
school because of the bullying.
There is a lot of fear out there. We need to concentrate on
doing the right things to protect Canadians. After all, our most
elemental duty as members of parliament is to provide legislation
that protects people and their property.
We have a government over there that figures the best thing to
do is to register property. Now the supreme court has come down
with a ruling that what the government has done is legal.
Because of the supreme court decision I am sure criminals are
shaking in their boots. They are all going to run down and
register their guns tomorrow morning. Of course they are not.
They do not give a hoot about it.
2040
The government comes down with legislation that simply goes
after honest law-abiding people and ignore the criminals. That
is another brilliant decision. It spends millions and millions,
and it is going to be billions of dollars, to try to accomplish
something with money that could have well been spent on real
protection of people.
Mr. Darrel Stinson: Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of
visiting the Joyceville prison in Ontario with the hon. member.
We were there about some complaints and concerns with regard to
the safety of the guards. While we were there we had the
opportunity of seeing a system that was in place. Perhaps the
hon. member can correct me on the costs, but I think they were
between $65,000 and $85,000.
A system was put in place to detect drugs as people came into
the prison. I asked the warden at that time, since it had been
in place for a few months, how much in drugs had been
confiscated. She said none. That is not what they do there.
When the alarm goes off they do not search the people or
anything. They tell the people to go back home and try again in
24 hours to see if they can come through the system.
I was just wondering if the hon. member had heard whether or not
they have changed the program at all. Perhaps now at least they
will stop and search the people and confiscate the drugs on them
at that point in time, or do they still just let them go back
home?
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I believe they can
search them if they have the desire and the direction from the
authorities to do so. I do not think that direction is given out
very often because we have a group of people who are running the
show and they are called Liberals. They have hired a
commissioner who is very soft.
They wanted to know whether correctional officers should be
uniformed, whether they should wear a military style uniform or a
police uniform or golf shirts. The commissioner has said that as
long he is commissioner they will wear golf shirts. He does not
want them to look like authority and scare the poor little
inmates to death. What kind of an attitude is that?
If the scanners my colleague is talking about are set off when
someone comes in as a visitor, there ought to be some serious
action taken immediately to determine what it is. It is true
they may pick up a five dollar bill in my pocket. It might
detect that someone had their hands on it at one time. They
should find out what it is.
They have a zero tolerance for drugs. Have we ever hear
anything funnier in our lives when drugs are more available in
penitentiaries than they are on any street in our country? There
is no real genuine effort to stop them. Their zero tolerance is
nonsense. It does not exit. I wish they would quit saying that
is their policy.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
opposition's interventions in this debate are very depressing.
They speak of waste, of scandal and of chaos. According to them
nothing is good in the country. I beg to differ.
Canada has at present the lowest unemployment rate in 24 years.
Inflation is negligible. The annual deficit has been eradicated.
Indeed the economy is producing surpluses. Canada is leading the
G-8 in economic growth and the UN names us as the best nation in
the world in which to live.
By focusing on the negatives the opposition is avoiding the real
issue of how government might assist those Canadians who are in
need. When the Prime Minister was in Berlin recently he
reiterated our Liberal approach which searches for a middle
ground between the extremes of left and right, an approach which
focuses on real people with practical solutions.
The Canadian model is about more than making money. It is about
accommodating diversity. It is about a partnership between
citizens and the state. It is about a balance that promotes
individual freedom and economic prosperity while sharing in the
risks and in the benefits. In other words it is about an
understanding that government can be a positive instrument for
serving the public interest.
2045
On the issue of HRDC grants and contributions, I want to remind
all Canadians and my hon. colleagues that the standing committee
fully explored the question of the administration of grants and
contributions. This review was conducted to ensure that the best
interests of Canadian taxpayers would be addressed.
To the surprise of no one on this side of the House, the report
of the standing committee, entitled “Seeking a Balance: Final
Report on Human Resources Development Canada Grants and
Contributions”, concluded:
Although some of the government's critics allege that HRDC grants
and contributions were dispensed to achieve political ends, proof
supporting this allegation has never been provided to the
Committee....In an overwhelmingly vast majority of cases, HRDC
grants and contributions are properly administered and spent.
These findings should have put an end to this protracted and
politically motivated debate. Certainly, they reinforce what the
original internal audit indicated; that information, not money,
was missing from many project files. Do not get me wrong.
Proper administration is central to ensuring proper
accountability for public funds.
Unless anyone has forgotten, it was precisely because HRDC was
committed to strengthening business practices that it initially
ordered and conducted the internal audit of its grants and
contributions. It was the minister of HRD who first alerted
Canadians to concerns that the department's administrative
systems needed improvement and who insisted her staff correct the
problems quickly and comprehensively.
It was the same minister who sought the expert advice of
respected outside experts on ways to improve management,
including the design and implementation of a six-point action
plan, a plan that has been endorsed by the auditor general. He
told the standing committee that the plan represents an
exceptional response and a very thorough plan for corrective
action.
HRDC is working hard to implement the action plan and to bring
the department's procedures up to the standards Canadians expect.
The administrative clean-up is well under way. As the minister
explained when she released the first progress report on the
action plan, the department has reviewed not just the audited
files, but all 17,000 active files, worth $1.5 billion. Where
information was missing, it was obtained. Where approvals were
not recorded or were carried out incorrectly, they were
corrected. Where further monitoring work was called for, it was
done.
What is most important to recognize is that of the $1.5 billion
worth of initiatives we reviewed, we identified only $6,500 in
outstanding debt to the government, not $1 billion as the
opposition claimed.
To ensure that we will not see a repeat of the old paperwork
problems, we have trained more than 3,000 program and financial
staff on the action plan directives and clarified their
accountability. We have put to use expert advice from the
auditor general, from the treasury board's Comptrollership
Standards Advisory Board, and from Deloitte & Touche. We have
put in place new conditions to ensure that each and every payment
meets all financial and administrative requirements before it
goes out.
Throughout this process we have worked hard to ensure
accountability for the tax dollars of the Canadian people, while
at the same time trying to avoid unnecessary red tape and
bureaucratic bottlenecks so that we can continue to provide the
programs Canadians need to improve their quality of life.
We have also made a commitment to keep Canadians informed of our
comprehensive response to this issue. In addition to quarterly
reports, every effort has been made to make as much information
available as humanly possible. HRDC has put more than 10,000
pages of details on specific grants and contributions on the
Internet. Anyone wanting further information need only visit the
department's website to find out more.
Anyone who takes the time to do so will discover the real story
behind grants and contributions; the stories of personal triumph
of people living in every riding in the country, people who count
on federally funded projects to help them overcome challenges
that would prevent them from achieving their potential.
The facts are that the dollar values of the grants and
contributions projects range widely from hundreds of dollars for
targeted wage subsidies to million-dollar agreements with
national organizations. More than 60% of the projects are funded
for amounts less than $25,000, and more than 80% are for less
than $100,000.
Our grants and contributions serve a wide interest, such as
vulnerable children through community based initiatives delivered
by organizations such as Big Brothers and the YMCA. Youth
employment strategy projects reach out to youth at risk, enabling
them to acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to lead
productive lives. There are programs for Canadians with
disabilities, such as the opportunities fund. The aboriginal
human resources development strategy improves aboriginal people's
employability. There are literacy projects run by local literacy
groups that are equipping Canadians with the skills they need to
function effectively in the job market.
2050
I am talking about federally financed programs that are making a
real difference in the lives of individual Canadians, and indeed
in the life of our nation.
Our success is clear. Some two million jobs have been created
since we took office. As I said before, the unemployment rate
has dropped from 11.4% to today's rate of 6.6%. This is the real
story that matters to Canadians.
I am proud to be a member of a government that believes deeply
in social investment. I know it is what our constituents expect
of us. Canadians share our conviction that we have a
responsibility to look out for each other and to support each
other when it is needed. To penalize Canadians who depend on
grants and contributions would be to punish the most
disadvantaged.
Some people are at a loss to fathom why the Canadian Alliance
persists with this long, drawn out debate, based on worn out
misconceptions and wrong information. I am not perplexed. It is
clear to me that the reason is their basic disagreement that
Canadians want their tax dollars used to help others who are in
need.
If there were any doubt about their intentions, one simply has
to read Hansard of Tuesday, June 6, when the Alliance's
lead critic for finance said that government activity should be
restricted to three things: the maintenance of law and order,
running the criminal justice system, and a strong national
defence. In other words, more policemen, more jails, more jail
guards and more soldiers and sailors. In other words, people in
uniform.
Did you hear the word health in that outline, Mr. Speaker? Did
you hear the word education? Did you hear the word
infrastructure? I do not think so.
Members of that party have clearly expressed their depressed
view of the world and their pessimistic view of the future of
Canada. I reject that and I invite all Canadians to celebrate in
the Canadian value that Canadians help one another in their time
of need. This government is pursuing that ideal.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I note that the previous speaker was the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development Canada,
that infamous department with the billion dollar boondoggle.
I thought I heard her say that they have hired 3,000 extra staff
to deal with the issue. I may be wrong. I was actually focused
on something else, but I think I heard that 3,000 extra staff had
been hired.
The parliamentary secretary gave a long diatribe against other
parties in this House. I really would like to know how she feels
about a billion dollar boondoggle, gross mismanagement in the
department, money being wasted and money that cannot be found,
other than the fact that there is a cancelled cheque. How does
that actually benefit Canadians?
We know the taxpayers are getting squeezed to come up with the
cash. When she has no real idea where the money has gone, why it
has gone to any particular area, or what benefit it gave to
Canadians, why would we want to support the estimates which will
give more money to this department?
A member of the Canadian Alliance has moved that $110 million
for the transitional jobs fund be eliminated. We have already
had over the previous months the minister of HRDC admit that her
pockets of unemployment, which allowed her to channel money into
her neighbourhood—
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. With all due respect, the member was on debate tonight at
least once. Time is running late. I think other members would
like a question. Could he not get to his point and allow the
parliamentary secretary to answer?
The Deputy Speaker: I think we have 10 minutes for
questions and comments. I admit that it will not be the full 10.
I do not think the hon. member has been unduly long in his
question. He has been two minutes. I know he will want to move
to the point.
Mr. John Williams: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would be
glad to allow some time for the hon. member of the Tory Party,
except that he did not rise fast enough and I was up first.
Therefore, I get the first question. That is the rule around
here. If he wants to be smart, he can get up first.
2055
The minister acknowledged that there were pockets of
unemployment which she used to justify money going into areas in
and around her riding. At first she stood by those grants as
following the rules, but then she had to admit that they did not
follow the rules.
I would like to know from the parliamentary secretary, how can
we believe that department when it says it is going to live by
the rules from here on in?
Ms. Bonnie Brown: First, Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the
premise of the hon. member's question. He calls HRDC an infamous
department. It is not infamous. Rather, it is famous to all
those senior citizens who get old age security cheques every
month and to all the unemployed who get employment insurance
cheques. It is helping people to keep the wolf from the door.
Millions and millions of Canadians have been the recipients. To
those people, when the cheque comes, HRDC is their best friend.
It is not infamous at all.
If it is infamous in anybody's eyes, it is because the hon.
member's party has been irresponsible in blowing up 1/60 of this
department's budget into what it incorrectly calls a billion
dollar boondoggle, despite proof that has been put forward in the
House day after day that a billion dollars is not missing and
that there is no boondoggle. Even tonight, on the last night of
the House, those members disgrace themselves by reiterating that
discredited phrase that no one else in the House believes.
I find it odd that the hon. member suggests that my speech,
which had one paragraph pointing out what that party has been
doing, was a long diatribe against another party. Actually, I
find it odd that he said that because his party is the expert on
long diatribes. We have been exposed in the House and the
Canadian public on television to a five month long diatribe from
that party which was filled with incorrect information, personal
attacks on the minister and the lowest possible form of
unintellectual debate that the House has ever witnessed.
Canadians have to know whom they can trust. We are the ones who
care about those in need. We are the ones with programs and they
are the ones who would cut those programs and stick to policemen,
jail guards and the army.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I find it rather symbolic that, at the end of
this debate, it is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Human Resources Development who defends the department, not
the present minister, who neglected to warn the public of this
scandal. Although she had been aware since August 1999, she
waited until January 2000 to inform us. I find it symbolic as
well that it is not the Minister for International Trade who
answers questions, while he is the one responsible for all of
this scandal.
Does the parliamentary secretary not find it astounding that,
when the Minister of Human Resources Development started talking
about the active files for which no money is recoverable, she
spoke of those containing no problem? She puts all the files
under RCMP investigation in the inactive files.
Is the federal government, in the end, not primarily responsible
for the doubt cast on the job creation programs through its
partisan management of public funds?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the
premise of the hon. member's question. The minister did not
forget to tell the House. The minister first heard about the
problem on November 17, ordered a stronger action plan than the
department had brought forth, and on January 19, I believe,
announced these things to Canadians. The minister did not forget
to tell anybody. The minister has been the most open and clear
minister that probably this House has ever seen.
When the hon. member talks about cases that were troublesome and
referred to the RCMP, he forgets to mention that there are but a
few of them. Out of 17,000 there are a few. We are not happy
about it. We have referred cases where there was any evidence of
mishandling of money. We have required receipts. We have done
everything we can to make sure that everything is up and above
board.
2100
Again, I am surprised that the member opposite, who believes in
grants and contributions, is also insisting on emphasizing the
negative instead of emphasizing the positive good that these
programs have done for the thousands and thousands of files
touching the lives of millions and millions of Canadians.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 9 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt
the proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary to
dispose of the supply proceedings now before the House.
[English]
ALLOTTED DAY—HEALTH CARE
The House resumed consideration of the motion and the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Wednesday,
June 14, 2000, 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.
2130
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Chatters
| Davies
| Doyle
| Duncan
|
Elley
| Epp
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
|
Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
| Hearn
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mark
| McDonough
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Proctor
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Schmidt
| Solomon
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Williams
– 48
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Asselin
| Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Cotler
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marceau
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Perron
| Peterson
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Venne
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 174
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I believe you would find consent to apply the results of the vote
just taken to the motion now before the House.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Chatters
| Davies
| Doyle
| Duncan
|
Elley
| Epp
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
|
Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
| Hearn
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mark
| McDonough
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Proctor
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Schmidt
| Solomon
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Williams
– 48
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Asselin
| Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Cotler
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marceau
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Perron
| Peterson
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Venne
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 174
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
MAIN ESTIMATES, 2000-01
The House resumed consideration of Motion No. 1.
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the
taking of several recorded divisions on motions relating to the
main estimates standing in the name of the hon. the President of
the Treasury Board. The question is on opposed item no. 1.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find that there
is unanimous consent for the members who voted on the previous
motion to be recorded as having voted on the motion now before
the House, with the Liberal members voting yea.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present this evening will be voting no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois will vote no to this motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the New Democratic party
will vote no to this motion.
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative
members will be voting no.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, Portage—Lisgar votes
no.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 143
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Chatters
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
| Harris
|
Hart
| Hearn
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| Mark
|
McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Williams – 79
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 carried.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the
following motions: Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
and 12.
2135
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed
in this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $441,207,000, under
ENVIRONMENT—Department—Operating expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001 (less the
amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 143
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Chatters
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
| Harris
|
Hart
| Hearn
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| Mark
|
McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Williams – 79
|
PAIRED
Members
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $905,562,000, under FISHERIES AND
OCEANS—Department—Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 143
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Chatters
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
| Harris
|
Hart
| Hearn
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| Mark
|
McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Williams – 79
|
PAIRED
Members
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—HEALTH
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $1,148,851,342, under
HEALTH—Department—Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 143
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Chatters
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
| Harris
|
Hart
| Hearn
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| Mark
|
McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Williams – 79
|
PAIRED
Members
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $460,180,000, under HUMAN
RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT—Department—Operating expenditures, in the
Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001 (less
the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 143
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Chatters
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
| Harris
|
Hart
| Hearn
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| Mark
|
McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Williams – 79
|
PAIRED
Members
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $7,724,106,000, under NATIONAL
DEFENCE—Department—Operating expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001 (less the
amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 143
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Chatters
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
| Harris
|
Hart
| Hearn
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| Mark
|
McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Williams – 79
|
PAIRED
Members
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—PRIVY COUNCIL
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $85,571,000, under PRIVY
COUNCIL—Department—Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 143
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Chatters
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
| Harris
|
Hart
| Hearn
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| Mark
|
McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Williams – 79
|
PAIRED
Members
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—SOLICITOR GENERAL
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $19,636,000, under SOLICITOR
GENERAL—Department—Operating expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001 (less the
amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 8, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 143
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Chatters
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
| Harris
|
Hart
| Hearn
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| Mark
|
McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Williams – 79
|
PAIRED
Members
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 25—SOLICITOR GENERAL
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 25, in the amount of $21,840,000, under SOLICITOR
GENERAL—National Parole Board—Program expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001 (less the
amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 9, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 143
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Chatters
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
| Harris
|
Hart
| Hearn
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| Mark
|
McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Williams – 79
|
PAIRED
Members
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $1,645,045,000, under PUBLIC WORKS
AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES—Department—Operating expenditures, in
the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001
(less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 10, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 143
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Chatters
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
| Harris
|
Hart
| Hearn
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| Mark
|
McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Williams – 79
|
PAIRED
Members
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5—PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 5, in the amount of $303,792,000, under PUBLIC WORKS
AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES—Department—Capital expenditures, in
the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001
(less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 11, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 143
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Chatters
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
| Harris
|
Hart
| Hearn
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| Mark
|
McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Williams – 79
|
PAIRED
Members
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN
DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $71,790,000, under INDIAN AFFAIRS
AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT—Department—Administration Program,
in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001
(less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 12, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 143
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Chatters
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
| Harris
|
Hart
| Hearn
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| Mark
|
McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Williams – 79
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, 9, 10, ll and 12 carried.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,
2001, except any Vote disposed of earlier today less the amounts
voted in Interim Supply be concurred in.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House with Liberal members voting yea.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed
in this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present this evening are definitely opposed to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois oppose this motion.
[English]
Mr. Yvon Godin: The members of the NDP present tonight
vote no to this motion.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative
members are voting no to this motion.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, Portage—Lisgar votes
no.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 143
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Chatters
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
| Harris
|
Hart
| Hearn
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| Mark
|
McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Williams – 79
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard moved that Bill C-42, an act for granting
to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of
Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2001, be read the
first time.
(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time)
[English]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard moved that the bill be read the
second time and referred to a committee of the whole.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the 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.
And more than five members having risen:
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I believe you would find consent to apply the results of the vote
taken previously to the motion now before the House.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed to apply the previous
vote to the motion now before the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 143
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Chatters
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
| Harris
|
Hart
| Hearn
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| Mark
|
McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Williams – 79
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and the House went into committee
thereon, Mr. Milliken in the chair)
The Chairman: Order, please. House in committee of the whole on
Bill C-42.
[Translation]
Shall clause 2 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 1 agreed to)
[English]
(On clause 3)
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Chairman, could the President of the Treasury Board please
confirm that this bill is in the usual form?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Chairman, the form of this bill is the same as that passed in
previous years.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Shall clause 3 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 3 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 4 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 4 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 5 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 5 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 6 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 6 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 7 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 7 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall schedule 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule 1 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall schedule 2 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule 2 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 1 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall the preamble carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Preamble agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Title agreed to)
(Bill reported)
2140
[English]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard moved that the bill be concurred
in.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote taken at second reading
to the motion for concurrence in report stage now before the
House, as well as for the motion for third reading to follow.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed to proceed in this
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 143
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Chatters
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
| Harris
|
Hart
| Hearn
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| Mark
|
McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Williams – 79
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard moved that the bill be read the
third time and passed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 143
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Chatters
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
| Harris
|
Hart
| Hearn
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| Mark
|
McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Williams – 79
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
NATURAL GAS
The House resumed from June 14 consideration of the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Wednesday,
June 14, the House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred recorded division on Motion No. 298 under Private
Members' Business.
2150
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
| Brien
| Brison
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Doyle
| Dumas
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gruending
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hardy
| Hearn
| Hoeppner
|
Hubbard
| Jackson
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Loubier
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
|
McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
| Riis
| Sauvageau
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Turp
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis – 51
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
| Cadman
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvard
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Ianno
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
| Longfield
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Morrison
|
Murray
| Myers
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 156
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
[Translation]
Order, please. Before putting the last question to the House, on
behalf of the Speaker, and my colleagues, the deputy chairman
and the assistant deputy chairman of committees of the whole
House, I would like to thank all the hon. members for their
co-operation during this session, particularly these past few
weeks.
[English]
On the part of myself, my colleagues in the chair and the table
officers of the House, I want to wish to all hon. members the
very best for a pleasant summer vacation. We look forward to
seeing all the members back at the resumption of the sitting
on September 18, if not before.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
CRIMINAL CODE
The House resumed from June 14, consideration of the motion
that Bill C-18, an act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired
driving causing death and other matters), be read the third time
and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, June
14, 2000, the House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading
stage of Bill C-18.
[English]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I
would propose that you seek and ask for unanimous consent that
members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having
voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members
voting yea.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed
in this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present this evening are very much in favour of this bill, as
always.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I am very unhappy to have to
end this evening and this session on a resounding no to this
motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the New Democratic Party
present this evening will vote yes on this motion.
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, the Progressive
Conservative members will vote in favour of this motion.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, Portage—Lisgar votes
yes.
Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Following Private Members' Business, could I add my name
back on the list to vote with the government, please?
Hon. Andy Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have my
name recorded with the government on this vote.
Hon. Robert D. Nault: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have
my name recorded as having voted with the government on this
motion.
Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have my vote
recorded as being in favour of this motion.
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps it might assist the table
officers if the chief government whip—and I think the other
whips would agree—would state that the vote that we are applying
is the one that was taken on the third reading of the supply
bill. I think it would be clearer and it might assist in
avoiding these different counts, subject to the people who might
not have been here for that vote.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of clarity, I
totally agree with your suggestion and will conform.
The Deputy Speaker: It will shorten the proceedings a
little. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Byrne
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Davies
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Duncan
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
|
Epp
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gilmour
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Gruending
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Hardy
| Harris
|
Hart
| Harvard
| Hearn
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Morrison
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solomon
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 191
|
NAYS
Members
Asselin
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Brien
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Loubier
| Marceau
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
| Venne
– 31
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
The Deputy Speaker: It being 9.55 p.m., pursuant to order
made earlier today, the House stands adjourned until Monday,
September 18, 2000 at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2)
and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 9.51 p.m.)