36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 66
CONTENTS
Friday, March 17, 2000
1005
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration
|
| Mr. Joe Fontana |
1010
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
| Mr. John Bryden |
1015
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Health Care
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Motion
|
1020
1025
| Mr. André Bachand |
1030
1035
| Amendment
|
| Mr. Joseph Volpe |
1040
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1045
1050
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
1055
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1100
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
| VIA RAIL
|
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| HENDERSON HOSPITAL
|
| Ms. Beth Phinney |
| THE BUDGET
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
1105
| THE FAMILY FARM
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| THE IRISH PEOPLE
|
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| BILL C-20
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| 3RD BATTALION OF ROYAL 22ND REGIMENT
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
1110
| HIGHWAY ACCIDENT IN SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE-DE-NICOLET
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| LORD BYNG SECONDARY SCHOOL
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| ST. PATRICK'S DAY
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| ST. PATRICK'S DAY
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1115
| HIGHWAY ACCIDENT IN SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE-DE-NICOLET
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1120
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1125
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| RAILWAYS
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1130
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1135
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1140
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1145
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1150
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1155
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| CANADA POST
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1200
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| CRTC
|
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
| Hon. John Manley |
| LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| Hon. John Manley |
1205
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
| ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
1210
| PETITIONS
|
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Genetic Engineering
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Child Poverty
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Health Care
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1215
1220
1225
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1230
| Mr. Grant Hill |
1235
1240
1245
1250
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1255
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
1300
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1305
1310
1315
1320
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1325
| Mr. Murray Calder |
1330
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1335
1340
1345
1350
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Health Care
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1355
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1400
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1405
1410
1415
| Division on amendment deferred
|
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 66
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, March 17, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1005
[English]
PRIVILEGE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
and members of the House of Commons, I rise on a question of
privilege with regard to the premature release of a confidential
document that was still work in progress at the Standing
Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
The member for Lakeland, who happens to be the vice-chair of the
committee, issued a media advisory, which says:
OTTAWA, Thursday, 16 March 2000: At 3:30 p.m. today in Room
130-S Centre Block, Reform MP Leon Benoit, MP will hold a press
conference to make the report of the citizenship and immigration
committee public. This report titled, “Refugee Protection and
Border Security: Striking a Balance” is marked confidential and
has yet to be tabled in the House of Commons.
I note that in the House of Commons Procedure and
Practice, chapter 20, at page 884 it says:
Committee reports must be presented to the House before they can
be released to the public. The majority of committee reports are
discussed and adopted at in camera meetings. Even when a
report is adopted in public session, the report itself is
considered confidential until it has actually been presented in
the House. In addition, where a committee report has been
considered and approved during in camera committee
meetings, any disclosure of the contents of a report prior to
presentation, either by Members or non-Members, may be judged a
breach of privilege. Speakers have ruled that questions of
privilege concerning leaked reports will not be considered unless
a specific charge is made against an individual, organization or
group, and that the charge must be levelled not only against
those outside the House who have made in camera material
public, but must also identify the source of the leak within the
House itself.
It is not only a question of privilege for myself but especially
for the members of the committee on citizenship and immigration
who have worked very hard over the past two or three months, and
on Wednesday or Thursday of this week continued to do that work,
and, as I said, it was work in progress.
Unfortunately the member for Lakeland and his colleague decided
not to participate in those meetings and hence have done this. I
think this is an important question of privilege, a privilege
that affects each and every member of the House. It is incumbent
upon us, because we all cannot sit on each other's committees,
that we do work on behalf of each other in these committees.
Therefore, until such time as the document is released to the
House, it is rather unfair that the members of the House of
Commons do not get to see these reports before they are leaked to
the public and, in this case, with intent and purpose as reported
by the news media.
1010
I ask that this question of privilege be immediately referred to
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs so that it
can deal with this breach of privilege which I believe demeans
the value of the House of Commons and the value of our purpose
here. After spending the better part of yesterday talking about
this institution and about how important and how respected it is,
I think this is absolutely deplorable.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you immediately refer this breach
of privilege by the member for Lakeland to the procedure and
House affairs committee for a report back to the House to
Commons.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
before you give your ruling, I would ask that you give the member
for Lakeland the opportunity to tell his side of the story in the
House. I know there is another side to this story that I think
you would want to hear.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, very briefly, I am a member of that committee. On the
very day that report was released, which was an initial report,
we were having deliberations and made several changes to the
existing report, including an amendment that I moved.
What I am afraid of is that because the first copy of the
report, which was not a final report, was released to the public,
it will be very unlikely that the media and the public will see
the substantial changes that were made. Not only is that not in
the public interest, but again, it erodes the opportunities of
members of parliament to make substantial changes and have them
debated in a public forum.
The Speaker: I take very seriously of course this
allegation of a breach of our rules, as the hon. member for
London North Centre has claimed. At the very least, I will take
the advice of the hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni. The member
of parliament for Lakeland has been named in this particular
point of privilege. I would like to hear what he has to say
about it.
This is not a report from the committee that is before the
House, at least at this point. I believe we have a steering
committee, which is the term that the member used and he will
correct me if I am wrong, and this met in camera. That is one
thing.
Second, I do not know that the committee itself has dealt with
this issue.
Third, I do not know, and perhaps some of you would know, but
did this actually take place, was a document used and was it
indeed a document that can be identified by the members of the
committee?
I have a couple of questions before I deal with this, at least
at this point. I will hold it in abeyance at the very least
until I hear what the hon. member for Lakeland has to say about
this.
I see the hon. member getting to his feet. Does he have more
information that he can give to the Chair?
Mr. Joe Fontana: Mr. Speaker, I respect your decision to
hear from the member for Lakeland, but I did want to answer three
of your questions.
First, it was not a steering committee. It was a full committee
of the citizenship and immigration committee that was undertaking
the work of preparing its report. My colleague from
Wentworth—Burlington has indicated that we had moved certain
amendments and wanted to publicize the report on Monday or
Tuesday.
Second, yes, there was a confidential draft report that was
produced. That was the report that was leaked at the news
conference held by the member for Lakeland yesterday at 3.35 p.m.
Upon witnessing the news release, which was on CPAC and the
internal communication devices of the House of Commons, I
immediately tabled the notice with the table officers. Yes, it
is a document that was being prepared by the full committee of
citizenship and immigration and was released in its unamended
form yesterday at 3.30 p.m.
1015
The Speaker: That would leave us with at least two things
to consider. First, absolutely, I am going to hear from the
member for Lakeland. Second, has this been dealt with in
committee? If it has not been dealt with in committee, we in the
House usually deal with these matters when there is a report from
the committee as a whole.
Those are the factors I am going to consider, not before I make
a decision, but before I even consider making a decision I would
like to have those things in place.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—HEALTH CARE
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC) moved:
That this House condemns the
government for its failure to provide Canadians with a long-term,
sustainable plan to address the crisis in our health care system,
and its continued failure to work with the provinces to ensure
funding formulas consistent with the founding principles of our
health care system to provide Canadians with timely and equal
access to quality health care.
He said: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to debate
this issue today and I want to read into the record the very
motion which you have just read:
That this House condemns the government for its failure to
provide Canadians with a long term, sustainable plan to address
the crisis in our health care system, and its continued failure
to work with the provinces to ensure funding formulas consistent
with the founding principles of our health care system to provide
Canadians with timely and equal access to quality health care.
I cannot stress enough the importance of this motion and this
debate. I will be splitting my time with the member for
Richmond—Arthabaska, who will be moving an amendment to my
motion.
I want to talk about the pillars upon which our health care
system is built, the principles of our health care system. There
are five of them: universality, accessibility,
comprehensiveness, portability and public administration.
We have to look at the motion very carefully. I know that we
could be attacked on some approaches to this, because in the
motion we are not talking about turning the clock back to the
1960s. We are not suggesting that. It is the year 2000 and
circumstances obviously have changed from the fifties when
universal health care was first introduced in Canada.
We realize full well that we cannot turn the clock back and we
are not suggesting that we go back to the 50:50 funding
arrangement. It would be unrealistic to suggest that, and we are
not suggesting that. We are suggesting that the government has
to pay attention to this issue and has to do something. It has
to take a leadership role.
I want to mention another important thing. We have a good
system in Canada and we do not want to lose it. We have to
acknowledge that. We have to move beyond the finger pointing.
I was reminded once in the House that when I point at you, Madam
Speaker, or anyone across the way, including the health minister,
who I am glad to see is here today, I have three fingers pointing
back at myself. I mention that because we are in this together
and we have to find a way to solve the problems that we have in
our health care system.
It is not simply pointing over there and then pointing back at
ourselves. Too much of that has gone on for years and years in
this country.
1020
Our health care system is a deal for Canadians. We have a good
system upon which we have to build. We have to preserve it.
Let us take a look at what we spend in terms of our GDP in
Canada versus other countries, realizing that we have a system
which includes everyone. No one is left outside our system. We
have a universal system. We want to protect the universality of
our system.
In Canada we dedicate approximately 9% of our GDP to maintaining
a universal health care system which includes every Canadian. By
comparison, the United States dedicates approximately 14% of
its GDP to a system that leaves out, at a minimum, 40% of the
population. Truly, the taxpayers are getting a deal. I think
most of us have to stand in our place and acknowledge that.
Where I think we have fallen short in recent years is on the
federal side, in terms of its responsibility to the provinces. I
mentioned at the outset that when universal health care was
introduced the funding formula required that 50% be paid by the
federal government. There will be arguments over figures on
this issue. Most people would accept that the funding formula
now on the federal side is about 15%. The government could argue
that it is 20% or more, but let us accept the fact that it is
15%.
I hear members opposite saying that it is 33%. Let us move
beyond that. I do not want to get into a rancorous back and
forth. I want to hear some intelligent debate today.
Regardless of what that percentage is, the fact is that by the
year 2004 $30 billion will have been extracted from the system on
the federal side of the equation. Most of the provinces cannot
live with that. What they are saying is, if the federal
government wants them to adhere to the principles of the Canada
Health Act, they need more money.
Madam Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to tone it down a
little. I know it is difficult for you to hear it, but from
where I am standing I can hear it. I do not mind the debate, but
please allow me to concentrate on my debate and members opposite
can take it outside the House. Please add another minute or two
to my speech, Madam Speaker. I will inflict more pain on them if
they do not quiet down.
We have a problem in this country. It is a funding problem
which we cannot walk away from. The federal government cannot
walk away from it.
In the recent budget there was mention of $2.5 billion going
back into the system. That $2.5 billion sounds pretty good, but
let us put it into perspective. The $2.5 billion supplement, as
it is called, will not to be added to the cash floor of the CHST.
It will go into a third party trust which will be split between
education and health care. It is the prerogative of the
provinces to spend it where they will.
If we assume that the provinces will be spending all of that
money on health care over the next three years, in my home
province of New Brunswick, once the money is sorted out and its
percentage is taken in, it will have exactly $5 million this year
to spend on health care. That would keep our system running for
one day. If we said that half of the money has to go to
education, we would be running the system for half a day. It
just shows how little attention the government paid to this issue
in the federal budget.
That is what led me to believe, from the day the minister
presented his budget in the House, that it was not an election
budget. It is reminiscent of a former prime minister by the name
of Mackenzie King. He was a political genius, but he always
created an artificial crisis, knowing full well that he could
solve it sometime down the road. In other words, at the right
moment he could solve the political problem which he himself
created.
That is what I see happening in this case. The government today
has the wherewithal to solve the problem, but it is not going to
solve it now. It will solve it six months or a year from now,
leading into an election. The government would call it political
opportunity. There was a lot of political opportunity in the
budget which was presented. We should not be surprised if the
government comes up with a last minute reprieve.
1025
It is easy to talk about what the government is doing wrong, but
it could easily point across to us and ask “What would you do?”
Let us talk about what we would do.
In March 1999 Joe Clark, the leader of our party, stated that we
would bring together the provinces, the territories, health care
professionals and others to establish contemporary national goals
and objectives for our health care system, negotiate acceptable
national standards, and create a reliable system to assess
performances and generate a common information base on what
Canadians expect and need in health care so that we can measure
and foresee the demands for services.
Those are only a few of the things we could do. The other thing
we could do, of course, is to provide more education for
Canadians on better health practices, move to reduce the number
of smokers in Canada who account for 25,000 deaths a year, and
move on the technology side.
I know my colleague will continue this debate, driving home some
of the points and concerns that he has. I look forward to the
debate.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
colleague was so clear, and what he said was so clear, that no
questions are asked of him in this House. This proves that
people are silent when faced with the truth. I am extremely
proud of my colleague.
I must admit that I am not an expert number cruncher, like the
future leader of the Liberal Party, the Minister of Finance, but
we do need to address the key figures. After two major
recessions, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the government
made cuts, but not in its own finances. Its main cuts were to
the transfer payments to the provinces.
It is said that 60% to 70% of the effort to fight the deficit
was focused on transfer payments to the provinces. There was
another 5% to 8% in program cuts. And then there was some $35
billion in increased taxes that went into the government's
coffers.
After the latest budget by the Liberal Party leader-in-waiting, we
are told that the federal government is a 30% partner in health.
It has to be remembered that that 30% figure dates from the
time the future Liberal Leader brought down his budget. That
was before the provincial budgets.
Our colleagues ought to wait for all of the provinces to have
brought down their budgets. They will then see that the federal
percentage will drop to about 15% or 20%. We will wait for the
final outcome.
When the future leader brought down his budget, the figure was
30%. But with the Quebec budget, the federal participation will
go down to pretty well what it was before the leader-in-waiting's
last budget.
Money is a problem, yes, but I believe we all agree that there
is also a problem of principle. In the future Liberal leader's
last budget, we were also told there would be a conference with
the ministers of health of all of the Canadian provinces.
1030
On this point I think the Minister of Health is right. I think
he wants to meet his counterparts in the provinces quickly, and
we congratulate him on that. It is important. This government
needs to do more of this: work more in partnership and not
announce programs without consulting its partners on it. This
is co-operative federalism. In fact, it is even more that that:
it is respect for others, which they were a bit short on.
However, the Minister of Health, unfortunately for him, was
ordered by his Prime Minister, the future former leader of the
Liberal Party, who said “There is no hurry before fall”. Why?
For a number of reasons.
The main reason is to wait and see what the provinces will each
do with their budget, their reinvestment in the health sector.
At that point, the federal Minister of Health will be able to
come along and say “Finally, you do not need money. Your
investment is three, four, or five times higher than mine. So
you have no funding problem. You have a program problem”.
The danger is that the federal Minister of Health will come
along with program ideas. With transfers not back in balance,
with federal participation, after the provincial budgets, at
between 15% and 20%, maximum, but not 30%, the minister will
arrive—because he wants to be an important player, even though
the game is not quite in his field of jurisdiction, depending on
the program—with program ideas.
With what is going on now, following the fight against the
deficit, reinvestment, primarily by the provinces, but a bit by
the federal government, is still below the figures prior to the
1993-94 cuts. What we are saying is that we would like to talk
about the health care system in general.
There are five basic principles that have guided us for years.
There are funding problems, the population is changing. Because
of increased costs due to inflation and population aging, it
will take $2 billion in the health care system just to maintain
existing services. So, to offset the costs of inflation and the
aging of the population, the government invests $2 billion.
This is the cost nationally of maintaining our health care at
the same level.
What we are saying—Mr. Clark rightly explained it and my
colleague appropriately pointed it out—is that there is
undoubtedly a money issue involved in the four points mentioned
by the hon. member.
If I give you more money, the choices that you will make will be
different. Having money is not everything, but it is helpful. It
makes it easier to decide and to plan. We are also asking for
long term planning, not in an office in Ottawa, but with the
partners in the federation, with the people who are associates
and partners in the federation.
The four points that my colleague clearly presented and that Mr.
Clark stated do not refer to money. Can we finally review what
is going on in our health system? Should we add one or two
principles to the five fundamental ones? Maybe. Should we
clarify the principles that we have? Maybe.
We should have a good debate.
We have to take the opportunity given to us by with what is
going on with Bill 11 in Alberta. Some may condemn Bill 11 while
others may applaud it, but at least there is a debate on this
issue in Alberta. Why not take this opportunity to sit down with
our partners and say “Here is what is going on”.
In the wake of the fight against the deficit and the problems in
the health care system, is it not time to review this issue
together? There are surely good ideas in Alberta. There are
surely good ideas in Quebec and in Nova Scotia. There are good
ideas everywhere, just like there are bad ideas everywhere. This
is clear.
But why wait until the fall? Why would the Minister of Health
not invite his partners and tell them “Listen, we will look at
the overall situation. I will not come up with my new programs
and tell you that I will give you money if you accept them. We
will look at the system in general, at the fundamental
principles. We will clarify and update these principles”. Why
not do this?
1035
I urge the Minister of Health to take this first step this
spring and, in the fall, following any discussions that may be
held during the summer, to come with solutions concerning basic
principles, funding and perhaps programs that are more suitable
or updated.
Let us not try to go at it backwards. Of course we think that
transfers should be adjusted. That having been said, let us
take this opportunity to discuss the problem in very broad
terms.
The health system must not be used for political ends by people
claiming that they want to defend it. I am referring, of
course, to the federal government. This is a responsibility
that must be shared by all partners.
When I look at what is going on in my home province, the local
level is becoming more and more involved. Hospital boards are
appointed by the local population. Then there is the issue of
regional health boards. We are trying to involve the
grassroots. This is a wonderful message to send the Minister of
Health “Do the same thing. Involve the grassroots”. Perhaps
not Edmonton, Sherbrooke or Victoriaville, but at least he could
involve the provinces and territories.
I wish to move an amendment to the member's motion.
[English]
He is our only member in Manitoba, at least for the moment, so
we need to take care of him a bit. I move:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on
the amendment.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I listened attentively to my two colleagues opposite
whose concern for the health care system in the country is very
genuine. It can only reflect our concerns.
I wonder if in expressing concern whether there is as well a
method to address those concerns. What is the solution they
would wish our government to follow? They have acknowledged in
their statements that we have been very progressive in adding
more and more funds to the Canadian health transfer. We have
been very trusting of our provincial partners in the discharge of
their duty with respect to health administration.
We found only last month that notwithstanding the social union
we signed one year ago and notwithstanding the fact that the
Government of Canada increased the transfers by $3.5 billion
immediately last February 1999, with an additional $8 billion to
follow, the provinces and in particular the province of Quebec
took the additional money, as he said mettre plus de fonds dans
les poches. Quebec took that money from les poches and put it
into bank accounts and not to the service of the health care
system which is in great need.
That province took $800 million.
Instead of investing in health care, it invested in interest
deposits. The province of Ontario thought it was a good example
to follow and put roughly $600 million into bank accounts rather
than invest in hospital restructuring and health care delivery.
1040
These are difficulties that we have to address. Our colleagues
opposite point out the obvious, that Canadians want a viable,
vibrant health care system. I wonder what they would have us do
short of the things we are doing. As we indicated in the last
budget, we are willing to do even more. They should give us the
bill, tell us what they would do, and we would look for the means
to finance it.
We have increased funds for medical health research. We have
increased funds for health innovation. We have increased funds
for various projects. We have discharged our responsibilities to
those in our care. What would members suggest we do for those
who come under the care of the provinces?
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my
colleague that, in the 1999 budget of the Liberal party
leader-in-waiting, the money could be spread over x years. It
seems that the provinces are being criticized for having kept
some hundreds of millions of dollars over a period of less than
one year.
I would like to ask my colleague how many billions are being
kept in the bank at present. How much are we talking about? Is
it $8, $10, $12 or $15 billion in the bank? Could you tell us
how much? You could talk to your partners about it. You could
perhaps find a solution.
We spoke of four items proposed by our leader that did not even
mention money. One of the ways to find solutions is to quit
doing what the hon. member has just done: province bashing.
As soon as possible, they say “Oh, let's attack the Minister of
Health for Ontario. Its government is Conservative”. Or “What
about the NDP Minister of Health of some other province? Let's
attack him”. Or “The Minister of Health for Quebec is a
separatist. Let's attack him”.
An hon. member: They even went after Brian Tobin.
Mr. André Bachand: Yes. I believe it is a matter of attitude.
A different way of doing things.
What is insulting, highly insulting, for those living daily with
health problems, is that the future leader of the Liberal Party
has said “We still have money, if you want it. There is still
some left”. If so, put the money on the table, and maybe
solutions will be found.
He has to put the money on the table. The federal government
has billions in the bank that might make it possible to find
solutions for all Canadians.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to begin by telling you that I will be sharing my
time with the hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood.
[English]
This motion should be rejected. Although there is much in what
was said by the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest with
which I agree, the motion is fundamentally flawed. The
government is doing the very thing he is calling upon us to do by
his motion today.
[Translation]
It is obvious that the status quo, the current situation is
unacceptable. One can see the problems that exist everywhere:
waiting lists, overcrowded emergency rooms, shortages of doctors
and particularly certain specialists, and shortages of nurses.
It is also obvious that just investing more money will not solve
these problems. Major changes in our ways of providing health
care services are also necessary.
1045
This is evidenced, as the hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence
mentioned, by the fact that certain provinces are not using some
of the money given to them for health by the federal government.
Why? As Quebec Minister of Finance Bernard Landry explained a
few days ago, it will take more than just money to face the
problems in our health care system. This issue also involves
management and organization.
[English]
We need two things if we are to deal with the issues in our
health care system, if we are to save it, as the hon. member
proposes, and if we are to improve the quality and access to
services within the principles of the Canada Health Act. Those
two things are: first, a long term plan on how to improve the way
we deliver services to ensure timely access to quality care; and
second, long term financing.
As the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have said, if
that long term financing requires additional money from the
Government of Canada, we will be there to do our part to support
that long term plan.
I will first deal with the plan. The House knows that in
January I invited ministers of health to join me at the table so
that we could get all the ministers on one side of the table and
the problems on the other and start working toward solutions and
find out what we have learned from best practices, the pilot
projects that many of the provinces have themselves put in place
and the innovations that the provinces themselves have
undertaken.
I have made it clear that I will not go to that meeting with a
fixed agenda or a settled approach. We are open to ideas and
proposals that the provinces themselves will bring forward.
Let me now deal with money.
[Translation]
The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska suggested that the
federal contribution to our health care system is 13 to 15 cents
per dollar. That is not true. The hon. member is mistaken.
[English]
The reality is that the Government of Canada contributes on
average more than 33 cents to every dollar of public spending on
health every year in the country. I will refer to figures
produced by the Canadian Institute for Health Information which
demonstrate that in New Brunswick, for example, the Government of
Canada contributes 55 cents of every public health dollar spent
every year. In Nova Scotia it is 47 cents. In Prince Edward
Island it is 64 cents. In Newfoundland it is 52 cents. In
Quebec it is 47 cents and in Manitoba it is 48 cents. A national
average of 33 cents on every dollar of public spending on health
in Canada comes from this government.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. The minister is referring to documents that are not
available to all members in the House. Would he agree to table
those documents?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid that is
not a point of order.
Hon. Allan Rock: Madam Speaker, I would be delighted to
table the document which is publicly available from the Canadian
Institute of Health Information.
I want to make one other point on funding before I leave it. The
platform of the Conservative Party in the last federal election
was that all transfers to the provinces by Ottawa should be by
tax points without cash. That is its policy. If we were to do
such a thing we would remove entirely the influence of the
Government of Canada and its ability to enforce the principles of
the Canada Health Act. It would be ruinous for the future of a
national health care system in the country.
This motion is wrong because its premise is fundamentally
flawed. The government is already doing what it said it would do
and what it was called upon today to do which is to develop a
plan in partnership with the provinces and commit to long term
financing for our health care system. We have called upon our
provincial partners to work with us to fix the single most
important feature of Canadian life, which is our medicare system,
and to marshal and mobilize a national will to achieve that
purpose.
1050
If the status quo is not acceptable, neither is the prospect of
private-for-profit health care. The American style system is not
acceptable in this country, and so we reject the position of the
Reform Party. We say that is not the answer to the problems we
confront.
There is a third option. The third option is to work
constructively with partners toward solutions that will work,
solutions that will improve access and quality of care. If we
are to succeed in that we must put aside partisan politics and
work in common cause on an issue that is bigger and more
important than any one of us.
The Prime Minister has now written to the first ministers. He
has suggested a meeting among first ministers late this year. He
has asked health ministers to develop an interim plan by June.
The Prime Minister has given us a timetable. Canadians have
given us a mandate. The provinces have shown that innovation can
work. It is now up to us to get behind that innovation, to turn
it into a long term plan to assure long term financing and to fix
this cherished national asset.
Let me close by saying that this is something we can do. The
answers are available to us. We need the political will. We
need the focus. We need the commitment that is necessary. A
nation that had the wit to invent it can find the will and the
ways to save it.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Obviously there is a
lot of interest in asking questions of the minister, so I will
ask you to limit your questions to one minute.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I am sharing my time with the Minister of Health. I
appeal to the House, so that my speech would not be interrupted,
that I could proceed right after question period. That would
give an extra three or four minutes for the question period, if
the House would agree to that.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Very well, there is
no problem but there are still five minutes left for questions
and comments.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Madam
Speaker, when I started out in this debate I was hoping we could
avoid, although not completely, the idea of throwing back and
forth who said what, who funded what and those percentages.
The minister's speech reminds me of that old axiom “Figures lie
and liars figure”, because we totally disagree on those numbers,
as did the member from Winnipeg. Those numbers are not real. If
it evolves into that type of debate, which it often does, nothing
happens. It goes back to finger pointing: him pointing at the
provinces and the provinces pointing back at him.
What we are talking about is fixing a system that is broken and
his government did it. We are looking for solutions, not name
calling and finger pointing, and who did what, who said what and
whose figures are real.
Hon. Allan Rock: Madam Speaker, if we are going to have a
debate, which the member started with his motion today, then let
us do it on the facts.
When I hear his colleague suggesting that Ottawa is contributing
15 cents on every dollar to health spending, that is plain wrong.
Let us put the facts on the table and let us have this debate
framed by reality.
The Government of Canada contributes one-third to all health
spending every year in this country. Let us get that straight.
These are not figures we are pulling out of the air. As I said,
they come from the Canadian Institute for Health Information. It
tracks actual spending on health in this country.
I went beyond figures and talked about what we need to fix the
health care system. I encourage the member and his party to join
us in that effort.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Madam Speaker, one of
the figures that is really difficult to argue with is the
percentage of spending per capita. That is the figure that is
accurate and reproducible.
I wonder if the minister would, from this document, because
these figures are in this document, go to 1993 and look at the
federal cash contribution per capita in Canada and compare that
with the same figure, the cash contribution from the federal
government per capita today.
Those are the two figures that tell the tale. Because those
figures are in that document, I ask the minister if he would
present them to us.
1055
Hon. Allan Rock: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to table
the document and the member can look at it from any angle he
would like to.
One message emerges clearly from that document, and it is that
for their own purposes some people understate the contribution of
the Government of Canada. I insist that we tell the truth. I
also insist that we look at the last four years in which in every
budget we have increased the transfers to the provinces for
health; a 25% increase over the last four years. Transfers this
year to the provinces are at an all time high. Those are the
facts.
As I have said, it will take two things to solve the problems
facing medicare: First, a long term plan with the changes we
will need; and second, a commitment to long term financing. Let
us focus on both. We are ready to get to work on each of those
elements.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
listened with interest to what the Minister of Health had to
say. He asked the provinces to show their willingness to
restore the health system.
It is fine for him to tell that to the provinces, but is he
undertaking to engage in dialogue with the provinces? Is he
undertaking to restore provincial transfer payments to the
1993-94 level? Is he undertaking to do something to make up to
the provinces the shortfall since 1994-95? Is he also
undertaking to respect provincial jurisdiction over service to
the public?
I ask him what he wants to do. Provincial governments are more
than willing, but let us not forget that it is because they have
seen their payments slashed by the federal government and been
forced to go through what they have gone through in the health
care system in the last few years.
Hon. Allan Rock: Madam Speaker, the government has already
stated its position on this. We have stated our commitment to be
there over the long term to fund the health care system with the
provinces. We have already stated our commitment to be there to
take part in the changes necessary in the delivery of services in
order to support the provinces in introducing the necessary
reforms.
I cited Bernard Landry, who said himself a few days ago that it
is a question not just of more money but also of how our health
care system is run.
Responsibility for the delivery of services is in the hands of
the provinces, and the Government of Canada also has a role to
play in co-ordinating the changes and supporting the provinces in
their efforts.
In reply to the questions put by the hon. member for Jonquière,
we have already stated our intention to honour our
responsibilities in this regard.
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my questions are simple. How is it that the health
minister is not able to come forward with a legal opinion after
four months since Ralph Klein introduced Bill-11 and two weeks
since he has known about the actual contents of the bill?
If he is now saying “wait for the regulations”, is the
Minister of Health in fact saying that he is waiting until Ralph
Klein puts the last nail in the coffin of public health care
before he acts?
Hon. Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, we have had this exchange
before. Let me remind the hon. member what I said to her. I
said that if she has a legal opinion with respect to Bill-11, I
wish she would share it with us.
The second thing I said to her was to wait until we found out
what the bill is all about. The premier himself is speaking about
amendments. We do not have the regulations. Let us find out
what the bill contains before we pronounce a final position.
1100
Finally, I have not been shy about expressing the government's
grave concern. We do not agree with the policy of private for
profit clinics. It will not help with costs. It will not help
with waiting lists. We have urged the premier to reconsider, as
he has done twice in the past.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, on several occasions
the minister has asked us to table the documents containing legal
opinions. Yesterday his House leader refused the unanimous
consent necessary to do so.
Will the Minister of Health now agree and assure that unanimous
consent is achieved for the tabling of these—
The Speaker: Let me understand. The Minister of Health would
not make this decision; the House would. Does the hon. member
have unanimous consent to table the document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to commend our government for its commitment to
preserving and promoting the environmental integrity of the Great
Lakes. I am from the north shore area of Lake Huron, so I
appreciate how important all of the lakes are to those
communities which depend on marine tourism and commercial
fishing.
In the latest federal budget a new commitment of $8 million per
year for three years was made to assist in the clean-up of 16
areas of concern identified by the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement.
Further, the latest report from the International Joint
Commission, entitled “Protection of the Waters of the Great
Lakes”, supports the government's action contained in Bill C-15,
which will prohibit the bulk removal of water from Canada's major
drainage basins, especially the Great Lakes.
While Canada recognizes the need to ensure safe, clean water for
all citizens of the world, simply removing water in bulk from the
Great Lakes is not the answer. Simply put, the ecology of the
Great Lakes Basin is too fragile.
These are firm actions by the government to protect the Great
Lakes—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan.
* * *
VIA RAIL
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have good news and bad news.
The good news is that the federal government's official subsidy
of VIA Rail was reduced from $212 million in 1997 to $178 million
in 1998. The bad news is that VIA's losses went from $253
million in 1997 to $261 million in 1998. Who picks up the
difference? The Canadian taxpayer. Perhaps that is why the
Minister of Transport went to cabinet and asked for the subsidy
to be increased from $500,000 a day to almost $2 million a day.
The good news is that the Rocky Mountaineer, a private sector
rail tour company, installed sewage containment units on all of
its rail cars years ago. The bad news is that VIA Rail continues
to dump raw sewage on the tracks wherever it goes. CN and CP
workers have to work on these tracks, which make for unbelievably
bad working conditions and possible health risks. If VIA is
forced to make the same change as the private sector voluntarily
did, the Canadian taxpayer will be asked to pick up the bill.
When is the government going to stop wasting the taxpayers'
money and privatize VIA Rail?
* * *
HENDERSON HOSPITAL
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Harris government continues to claim that the federal
government contributes only 13% to public health care spending in
Ontario, when in fact the real number is 33%. That government
still has half a billion dollars in federal health care cash from
last year in the bank. That money could be used to enhance
health care in Ontario. Rather, it is contemplating the closure
of Henderson Hospital, the only hospital on Hamilton Mountain.
The constituents of Hamilton Mountain have spoken. They want
and need this hospital. Twelve hundred people attended a rally
last week to tell the Harris government to use the health care
cash and keep Henderson Hospital open.
I congratulate the provincial Liberal member for Hamilton
Mountain, Marie Boutriani, for her efforts to keep this hospital
open.
The federal government has shown its commitment to health care.
Now it is time for the provincial government to do the same and
keep Henderson Hospital on Hamilton Mountain open.
* * *
THE BUDGET
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in my riding of Vancouver Kingsway last week I met with local
small business owners to discuss the federal budget. I am very
proud to report to the House that those business owners were very
positive toward the government's budget provisions and tax
reductions for the business sector. They will go a long way to
support not only businesses but also the communities in which
they operate.
This action by our government proves that Canada is on the right
track to support our economy and business development in Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the
member for Joliette once again displayed his ignorance. He is
so nervous about losing his seat in the next election that he
has already started attacking our party.
1105
I would like to point out in this House that the Liberal Party
of Canada has invited young people between 14 and 18, with the
permission of all their parents, to savour a unique
experience—participating in the political process of a major
party. Nothing was done unbeknownst to anyone.
Allow me, however, to salute the young people of Joliette, who
are here in this House and who have revealed their desire to
learn, their interest in the future and their wish to assume
their place in society. Welcome to Ottawa.
It would be appropriate for the member from Joliette to make a
public apology and inform the people of Joliette that the
incompetence and irresponsibility are not ours.
The members of the sovereignist party want the voting age
lowered to 16, so long as the voters are separatist, I imagine.
The member should be ashamed of worrying their parents and
especially of implying that the young people had no idea why
they were here in Ottawa.
* * *
[English]
THE FAMILY FARM
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the people of Toronto saw a strange sight this week.
Motorists travelling the infamously congested highways around
Canada's largest city found a big red Massey-Ferguson combine in
the lane next to them. That combine is named Prairie Belle,
driven by my constituent Nick Parsons from Dawson Creek, B.C.
Nick set out on February 1 from the small rural community of
Farmington, British Columbia on a 3,000-plus kilometre odyssey to
Ottawa. The purpose: to raise awareness for the family farm
income crisis which is forcing western producers into bankruptcy.
To welcome Nick to Ottawa I am hosting a rally on Monday, March
20 at 11 a.m. in front of the centennial flame on Parliament
Hill. I invite all those interested in showing their support for
Nick or welcoming him to the nation's capital to come out on
Monday morning.
* * *
THE IRISH PEOPLE
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the coat of arms of Canada bears among its symbols the Royal Harp
of Tara and the Shamrock of St. Patrick to recognize the
outstanding contribution of the Irish people in the formation of
our blessed nation.
The Irish began to arrive in a trickle as early as the 17th
century in Newfoundland. That trickle became a river during the
18th and early 19th centuries. That river became a great flood
of Irish refugees during the tragic years of the great famine in
Ireland.
By the time of confederation in 1867 fully one-third of the
people of Canada were of Irish origin, including the visionary
Father of Confederation, Thomas D'Arcy McGee.
Today some four million Canadians are of Irish ancestry. Former
prime ministers Lester B. Pearson, Louis St. Laurent and Brian
Mulroney all shared Irish ancestry. Some 70 MPs in the House of
Commons are of Irish ancestry, by far the largest cultural
representation after French and English.
Today I wish the people of Canada and Ireland a very happy St.
Patrick's Day.
[Editor's Note: The hon. member spoke Gaelic]
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-20
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-20
is undemocratic. We already know this and have said so on many
occasions. Now it is the turn of the French political community
to point out that this bill is an affront to democracy.
“If this bill is passed, Quebecers will lose, within Canada,
their right to self-determination” says Jacques Julliard, in the
weekly Le Nouvel Observateur. “There is an inexorability about
the Anglo-Saxon steam roller. Hegemony is not enough—it wants
the other to disappear”.
The Bloc Quebecois echoes Jacques Julliard, who is calling on
French parliamentarians to come to the defence of democracy by
“pointing out publicly that passage of Bill C-20 would an affront
to the francophone community”.
In the land of liberty, equality and fraternity, democracy
involves respect for the people. Bill C-20, unfortunately,
proves Canada's lack of respect for the people of Quebec.
* * *
3RD BATTALION OF ROYAL 22ND REGIMENT
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am certain that all members of this House will join
with me in expressing our gratitude and admiration to the 250 or
so military personnel, most of them members of the 3rd battalion
of Valcartier's Royal 22nd Regiment, who will soon be returning
from East Timor.
Despite the dangerous conditions to which they were frequently
exposed, despite numerous natural and man-made hazards, our
soldiers have established and maintained a sizeable peace zone.
They have also affected the lives of thousands of East Timorese
by providing them with the basic necessities of life: medical
care, food and drinking water in particular.
We acknowledge the exceptional job that our military personnel
have done in this distant part of the world, with the support of
their family members back in Canada. We congratulate both them
and their families and wish them a safe journey home to their
loved ones.
* * *
1110
HIGHWAY ACCIDENT IN SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE-DE-NICOLET
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the pictures of
yesterday's tragic highway accident near Nicolet are horrifying
and terribly sad. Seven young children lost their lives in this
terrible accident and others are in serious condition.
Accidents like this, particularly when the victims are so young,
remind us just how precious life is.
There is nothing more painful for a parent than to lose a child
and nothing can fill the void left within the family.
Our prayers and thoughts are with all the survivors, as well as
with the families and friends of the children who lost their
lives. We extend our deepest sympathies to them all.
* * *
[English]
LORD BYNG SECONDARY SCHOOL
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
next Monday, March 20, a group of talented young musicians from
Lord Byng Secondary School in my riding of Vancouver Quadra will
offer a noon hour concert in the Hall of Honour from 12 noon
to 12.45 p.m. Their performance on Parliament Hill is part of a
millennium tour across Canada organized by the group for March
16 to March 24.
I invite all members to drop by and take part in this special
concert by one of Canada's finest secondary school orchestras.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
today I call the attention of the House to a growing concern on
the part of many Canadians that the issue of compensation for
aboriginal victims of the residential school system is not being
dealt with adequately by the government.
In their view, the government should be showing more leadership
and more willingness to share the cost with the churches. Surely
it is important to make sure that the churches involved do not go
bankrupt or are so severely economically damaged that much of their
social service and social action work will have to be eliminated
just to survive.
It is also important that justice be accomplished swiftly
for those who have legitimate claims. This cannot be done if
this issue drags on for years, claim by claim.
The churches must and will take their share of the
responsibility, but let us not forget that they participated in
this social and cultural tragedy at the behest of and in
co-operation with the federal government.
* * *
ST. PATRICK'S DAY
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, this is
St. Paddy's Day and it is a very special day. I come from the
most Irish city there is in Canada. That is why I am wearing the
green.
[Editor's Note: Members sang when Irish Eyes Are Smiling]
* * *
[Translation]
ST. PATRICK'S DAY
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
St. Patrick's Day is a time to remember that many Irish people
left their country over 150 years ago to escape famine.
After a long and difficult voyage across the Atlantic ocean,
during which several of them died, these courageous men and
women found in our country a generous new land where they
settled, and a friendly new community which they joined.
Far from being indifferent to the debates that were taking place
in their new community, the Irish generally espoused the
political aspirations of that community, as witnessed by the
participation of a number of them in the noble cause of the
Patriotes, in 1837-38.
While maintaining a very strong emotional link with the land of
their ancestors, that far away Ireland that achieved political
independence or that is still on the way to emancipation,
Quebecers of Irish origin, and I am one of them, have developed
very deep roots in America.
Because of history, these people are
now in a unique position to see how similar the situations of
the Irish and Quebec people are.
1115
[English]
The Speaker: Yesterday we had a Standing Order 31 and
today we had a Standing Order 31 by the member for Macleod. I
understand that there has been at least some cursory questions
about the next standing order that we are going to hear, at which
time I will take an action that for us is not regular, but I know
that all members will want to hear this standing order.
* * *
[Translation]
HIGHWAY ACCIDENT IN SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE-DE-NICOLET
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is with great sadness that I pay tribute to the seven young
children who died yesterday morning in a tragic traffic
accident, in Saint-Jean-Baptiste-de-Nicolet, a small town on the
south shore of the St. Lawrence River, across from
Trois-Rivières.
Two other children are still at the Centre hospitalier in
Trois-Rivières, and one of them is in critical condition. We wish
to offer our sincere condolences to the families struck by that
terrible tragedy.
Our prayers are with them in this time of great suffering.
I now ask the members of this House to observe one minute of
silence, out of respect for these seven young victims.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon the House stood in silence.]
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, for five weeks we have been repeatedly asking the
Minister of Human Resources Development to justify her billion
dollar boondoggle. For five weeks she has stonewalled with
non-answers, conflicting lists and image consultants.
There are now 19 police investigations, three in the Prime
Minister's riding, that we know about. She has dodged this
before, but let us try again. How many cases, as of today, have
been referred to the police for further investigation?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the majority of the so-called 19
investigations concern ACOA. Four of them involve investigations
when grants were given by the Tories when they were in power.
Three of them involve only provincial government shares in those
particular grants. Only two of them involve money that was only
from ACOA. In both those cases no money was disbursed. The
question is in the application, so the opposition questions are
full of sound and fury but the racket signifies nothing.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I note the new minister of human resources development
did not mention the fact that he has failed to call in the police
about the violation of the Financial Administration Act.
Departmental Q and As and briefing notes refer to widespread
disregard of this law. Let me quote from one of them: “It
would appear that this section of the FAA was not respected”. In
other words, the minister's department thought that the law had
been broken.
Was it the fact that the Prime Minister was involved that kept
the police from being called?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes reference to
something that we have discussed in the House on a number of
occasions. I talked about the trust funds on November 4 and 5
and on several other days subsequent to that.
1120
I repeat again that it was an administrative error which was
made in establishing the trust funds. It was an error done in
good faith by an employee. In such a case the appropriate remedy
is to correct the mistake, and that is what we have done.
If the hon. member thinks that the employee was acting in bad
faith, that it was corrupt, that somehow there was fraud
involved, then let him bring forward that information.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the minister should be held responsible for the
actions of her department.
The Prime Minister's riding got more money from this minister
than whole provinces with populations 32 times the size of
Shawinigan. Fully one-third or 33% of the recipients donated to
his campaign. This is all about political interference.
If she does not believe me she could listen to her own
employees' radio ads. I ask again was it her boss' interference
that kept her from calling the cops.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these questions are absolutely
incredible. If there was political interference then why did we
invest $77 million in the riding of Saskatoon—Humboldt? Why
were there $57 million of grants and contributions in the riding
of Prince George—Peace River? Why were there $52 million in
Nanaimo—Cowichan?
As I have said time and again in the House, the grants and
contributions from the Department of Human Resources Development
Canada are invested in ridings of all members of the House. They
are there to support Canadian individuals who have disabilities,
young people, those who want—
The Speaker: Sometimes when members are standing either
to ask a question or give an answer the microphones are on at the
next desk and are sometimes are picking up your voices.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
what is amazing and surprising is that the minister defends good
faith errors instead of lifting a finger to do something about
that kind of incompetence. There are very few places where that
kind of incompetence is applauded. I am sure she will get—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. We will hear the question
from the member.
Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, there are very few places
where incompetence will get applause but there will be a lot of
it this weekend, I am sure, for the minister at the Liberal
convention.
Her own employees have taken out radio ads to distance
themselves from the minister's incompetence. They warned against
illegal trust funds in the Prime Minister's riding because, as
they said, it would appear the Financial Administration Act was
not respected.
If the minister were really concerned about rule breaking in her
department, why did she not call the police when she found out
about these trust funds?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said on a number of occasions,
when I discovered that these trust funds had been created I asked
the officials to look at them closely. I would like to quote
from a letter from my deputy minister to me on this very issue
wherein she wrote:
While the creation of a trust fund as a mechanism to flow funds
is unusual, it is not prohibited by the Financial Administration
Act. Our management approach on learning of such issues is
remedial rather than punitive unless there is evidence of fraud
or theft, in which case we refer the matter to the police for
investigation.
In this case there was no indication of fraud or theft and, as I
said before, if they have information then let them bring it
forward.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the information comes from the minister's own employees.
She says she is going to look at the information closely, but she
is not lifting a finger to do anything about it. She takes it as
an opinion instead of doing something about it.
We do not ask these questions just to watch the minister blush.
We want an answer to these questions because she has not answered
why there has been a policy of violating an act of parliament
that has gone untouched by her department.
Why did she not inform the police? Was it because she was
afraid of being caught, or was it that she was trying to protect
the Prime Minister?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again all I can say is this is more
Reform mythology. In all these undertakings what we see is
members of that party talking about in the first instance $3
billion missing, and that is not the case. Why do they not say
that? They then said $1 billion were missing. That is not the
case. Why do they not say that?
In this case we have closed the trust funds and taken action,
yet they persist. If they have information then bring it forward
or else—
An hon. member: Shut up.
Hon. Jane Stewart: —admit they are wrong.
The Speaker: Order, please. Of course the word shut up
is not parliamentary, but I told members about open microphones.
1125
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
several aspects of the Placeteco affair remain rather troubling.
A sum of $1 million was used to pay off a National Bank of
Canada loan; $200,000 is still unaccounted for.
Will the minister tell us whether she intends to call for an
investigation into Placeteco?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again we are talking about a file that
has been discussed in this place on a number of occasions: on
June 10, 1999; on November 4 and 5, 1999; and on March 13 and 15,
2000.
My officials have confirmed, as I have said to the House, that
the moneys invested in Placeteco were for expenditures that were
according to the terms and conditions of the program. Again I
say in this case we are one partner and this undertaking was
supported by the Government of Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
a bit surprised by the minister's answer.
She told us to get in touch with her department for information,
which we did. They told us that they could not give us the
information about Placeteco that we requested because the
project was currently under investigation.
I would like to know who is telling the truth: departmental
officials, who tell us that the project is under investigation,
or the minister, who tells us that there is no investigation, or
perhaps she does not know? Who is telling the truth in all
this? Why is it that we are being told that the project is
under investigation?
It is her department that has answered us. I will send her the
letter. She tells us there is no investigation. Who is telling
the truth?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have answered questions almost on a
daily basis on this file. I say again that the expenditures to
this company were according to the terms and conditions of the
transitional jobs fund program.
This program has created employment opportunities for Canadians
who otherwise would not have had them. I say again that we are
but one partner and this undertaking was supported by the
municipality, by the company, and by headquarters of the Bloc
Quebecois, the Government of Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, this gets harder and harder to understand.
On the one hand, the minister does not know that Placeteco is
under investigation and, on the other hand, her department tells
us that it is. I will read her the letter again: “In response
to your request, we are unable to send you the information you
requested because this project is currently under
investigation”.
Will the minister tell us whether there is an investigation
under way, yes or no?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am standing here answering questions on
this particular file. We have talked about this undertaking and
again we find we have an investment that is ensuring that people
in the province of Quebec are working when they otherwise would
not be.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister presents a sorry spectacle.
Either the officials' information is inaccurate, or the minister
has completely lost control of her department.
Does the minister intend, yes or no, to have Placeteco
investigated, now that we have provided her with all the facts?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to give an answer and I am glad
to say that in the case of Placeteco we have a transitional jobs
fund that is according to the terms and conditions of the
program.
Employees are working where they would not otherwise. In fact,
as is usual in all these cases, we are one partner and this was
viewed to be an appropriate investment in the province of Quebec
for the people of that province.
* * *
RAILWAYS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister has been quoted as saying that one of his
goals has been to prevent the Americanization of Canada. To me
this sounds passing strange for someone who allowed a major piece
of Canadian infrastructure, the CNR, to go from being wholly
owned by the Canadian people to being largely owned by American
shareholders.
1130
That being said, we now have another proposal before us which is
the proposed merger between the CNR and the Burlington Northern
Santa Fe railroads.
I want to ask the Minister of Transport, given the many concerns
that have been raised about this, how does the government propose
that this issue be dealt with, both in terms of process and in
terms of some of the concerns that—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Transport.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think we should look at this proposed
consolidation of the railways as a great opportunity for a great
Canadian company. Obviously there are ramifications to the
transportation policy that have to be examined.
I do not think it is particularly wise or acceptable to have
Canadians go to Washington for the surface transportation board
hearings all the time. I think we have to find some way here in
Canada to formalize hearings on the particular merger. Perhaps
that is through the standing committee. I will have a chat with
my good friend the chairman of the standing committee about that
in the next few days.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, we would certainly welcome an opportunity for the
Standing Committee on Transport to hold hearings on this and to
hear from Canadians in Canada about the possible ramifications of
this merger.
While I am talking about railroads, there was speculation before
the budget that there might be more money for VIA. Nothing has
come forward so far.
Could the Minister of Transport tell us what the status of the
future of VIA is and whether there will be more money going to
VIA Rail?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as you know there has been extensive debate and
analysis of all the options on the future of passenger rail
transportation.
The standing committee talked about the renaissance of passenger
rail. The government is committed to the renaissance of
passenger rail. Very shortly I will be making an announcement
that will guarantee passenger rail service we can be proud of for
future years.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, it has been two years since the government announced its
hepatitis C compensation package. Sadly not one cent has flowed
to the compensation victims, not a nickel. The lawyers have been
paid. Can you believe it? The lawyers have been paid but not
the victims.
My question for the minister is, what excuses is he now offering
up for this dismal performance? Will he personally intervene to
make sure that these victims get their compensation?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have been before the court urging it to ensure that those
cheques go to the claimants as soon as possible.
I want to remind the member that this settlement was only
possible because the government went to the provinces, went to
the claimants, and proposed to spare them even longer litigation.
We want those cheques in the hands of the claimants as soon as
possible.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, in your former life as a teacher you often heard the
excuse, “The dog ate my homework”. That is a dog ate my
homework excuse if I have ever heard one.
We do not want platitudes. We want action. What is the
minister going to do specifically? Tell us, the Canadian people,
what he is going to do to make sure that these victims are
compensated. The lawyers got paid. Why can the victims not get
paid? In the meantime in the last couple of years 40 victims have
died without any compensation for them and their families. How
long is this performance going to continue?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will tell you what we have done. After years of inaction by a
Tory government, this government went to the table with the
provinces and found a solution. We found a solution. We put
$1.3 billion into a settlement for tens of thousands of victims.
The court has now approved that. As soon as the court gets the
administrator to mail those cheques, which I believe will be in
the next short while, they will get money they never got under
the Tories.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, HRD
was warned that the Iris sock grant would be a job killer and it
certainly was.
Within weeks, two firms in the same sector had to shut their
doors. Yet with two of their competitors out of business, Iris
socks still could not deliver on its promises.
Iris created less than one-half of the 3,000 jobs promised. In
fact, Iris did not live up to its half of the bargain. When
Videotron did not deliver, it had to pay back $200,000. Why has
the minister not demanded that Iris hand back $3 million of
taxpayers' money for its broken promise?
1135
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again this is a file we have talked about
in the House before. As I indicated, it became clearer as we
worked with the company that because of circumstances at the
plant there were not going to be the original number of jobs
created. Instead of investing the $8.1 million that was
originally anticipated, $5.9 million was invested and 1,440
people are working in that plant who otherwise would not be
working.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
hear the minister saying that they talk about this a lot, but we
have noticed in the last several months there have not been very
many answers. I hope the Liberal delegates at this weekend's
convention do not get the same kind of treatment from the
minister.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order.
Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, I guess the answer is
that the Liberal delegates probably will not get to ask questions
of the minister.
We know the HRD department gave Iris Hosiery $6 million. We
know that the industry association—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. We are going to hear the
question.
Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that we
hit a nerve pretty solidly over there today.
We know the HRD department gave Iris Hosiery $6 million. The
minister just told us that. It was scaled back to $6 million. We
know that the industry associations advised against it. We also
know that Iris Hosiery gave the Liberal Party $21,190.
If Iris gave $21,000 in donations to the Liberal Party, if this
was incidental, why did HRDC go ahead and give that money against
the advice of industry associations?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes reference to
Liberal delegates. I can tell him that the Liberal delegates at
the convention, like Canadians, have been watching what has been
going on in the House. I can tell him that Canadians have been
able to separate politics from substance.
Canadians understand what this issue is all about. They know
that we are taking the issue of administrative management on
grants and contributions very seriously in my department. They
also know the importance of grants and contributions in the lives
of Canadians. They also know that the puff and blowery that is
coming out of that side of the House is nothing more than plain
politics.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since
I asked my question, I sent the letter from her department to
the minister. She sent it to her assistants in the Liberals'
lobby, and they returned the letter to her. I imagine she has
an answer by now.
Could she tell us whether Placeteco is being investigated, yes
or no?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that there is no
investigation under way. I will also attempt to advise the hon.
member why this memo was sent to him.
Again I will confirm that there is no investigation. I will
repeat my answer that the investments in Placeteco have created
and supported 159 people, ensuring that they have an opportunity
and that their headquarters, the Government of Quebec, agreed
that this was a wise investment.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
have a bit of a problem. Did yesterday evening's revellers—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: There is another problem. How is it that
the department is telling us—because the minister told us to
contact the HRDC grants and contributions response centre, which
thanked us for our interest in the HRDC grants and contributions
program; very kind of them—that Placeteco is under investigation?
Could she explain the misinformation?
1140
In other words, is her department lying in response to the
opposition? Is there a directive from the minister to have—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my response and say that
there is no investigation under way. I am looking into why this
document was forwarded to the hon. member in such a fashion and
we will deal with it.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
HRDC documents dated June 5, 1998 referred to the
misappropriation of funds with respect to the Iris deal. The
minister seems unwilling to provide any details on exactly how
much was misappropriated and what was done about it. She chooses
to boast that Iris lived up to half of its expectations.
I ask the minister again. How much money was misappropriated
and why were the police not called in?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is so interesting about this is that
the hon. member makes reference to a June 5 document which was
part of an access to information request that they made. It talks
about asking the department to confirm that things were all right
at Bas Iris. What they fail to say is that in the same ATIP
request was the response from the department that on June 25 it
looked into it and there was nothing wrong.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let
us try something else.
I have received complaints from my constituency about
irregularities pertaining to the allocation of HRDC funds within
the Metis community in British Columbia. The Surrey Leader
newspaper has run a series of reports on questionable training
programs and nepotism. The complainants, some of whom are Metis,
have already requested a forensic audit and have been turned
down.
Seeing as how there are already at least 19 ongoing
investigations into similar complaints, why will the minister not
grant a forensic audit in this case?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member is not aware that
in cases of grants under HRDC or loans under ACOA, where there is
money owed to the federal government, we have signed an
understanding with the best collection agency in Canada to
collect that money. It chases somebody right to the grave.
Granted, the collection agency is headed by a prominent Liberal
from Quebec. I might as well admit that. It is called Revenue
Canada Taxation.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister is boasting of the 10,000 pages of information she has
been made public, and refers us to a phone number if we require
more information. That is the number that was used in relation
to the Placeteco affair.
Can the minister explain to us why her department is refusing to
respond to our request for information, because Placeteco is
apparently under investigation?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have answered this on several occasions
now and the response is still the same. There is no
investigation. I am looking into why the communique was given to
the Bloc. I will respond to the Bloc when I have that
information.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will
ask the minister this: Why is her department telling us that the
case is under investigation?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will verify that.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
for two days the HRD minister has avoided answering questions
about the complete disregard of the Financial Administration Act
within her department. Yet we know at the root of this blatant
disregard of the rules is the Prime Minister's plan to funnel as
much money as he possibly can into his own riding. Guess what?
The Prime Minister's riding got more money than the entire
province of Alberta.
Now that the Prime Minister has been forced to turn off the taps
in HRD, is it true that projects like the Shawinigan fountain are
also going to dry up?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, shoddy research, mythology,
politics; that is what that party is all about in this
undertaking.
There are considerable dollars invested in the province of
Alberta in the context of grants and contributions.
There are limited dollars in the context of the transitional jobs
fund and the Canada jobs fund because that is for areas of high
unemployment. As the hon. member knows, Alberta does not have an
issue with high unemployment.
1145
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we know it is St. Patrick's Day but there is more than a wee bit
of the blarney in that answer.
It is rather ironic that the main beneficiary in terms of jobs
in the Prime Minister's riding is the RCMP.
There are currently at least three RCMP criminal investigations
within his own riding, more than in any other riding within the
country.
When we listen to the Minister of Veterans Affairs we would
expect that it is simply a coincidence that these things happen
in the Prime Minister's riding. Why is it that the Prime
Minister's riding attracts criminal investigations—
The Speaker: Order, please. The question is out of
order. If the hon. Deputy Prime Minister wants to answer it I
will let him.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member is making an assertion for which he has no
facts whatsoever. Why does he not put down as a fact that the
riding of Nanaimo—Alberni received $33.3 million from all the
programs of the HRD department? The Prime Minister's riding
received only $20 million over the last three fiscal years. Is
his riding under investigation? Give us the facts.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Experience Canada program, with its 30% success rate, is a
failure.
This program of the Council for Canadian Unity is a source of
considerable concern to departmental employees, but that did not
stop the Minister for International Trade, when Minister of
Human Resources Development, from congratulating the
organization on several occasions on its so-called success.
When I write something in a letter, I stand behind it.
My question is for the Minister for International Trade. How
could he praise an organization that has failed so miserably at
attaining the objectives of the program for which he himself was
responsible?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I responded yesterday, our partnership
with the Council for Canadian Unity in the area of Experience
Canada is working. We are working with our sponsors to ensure
that we increase the opportunities for young people to travel
around the country and to get to know it.
We know why the members opposite do not like it. It is because
28% of the young people who are in this program come from the
province of Quebec. Because of this program, these young people
may get experience, enjoy their country and want to remain part
of it.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
International Joint Commission has released its final report on
protecting the Great Lakes waters. It strongly recommends that
governments should not permit the removal of water from the Great
Lakes basin unless an extremely restrictive set of conditions can
be met.
Can the Minister of the Environment assure the House today that
this report will assist Canada in prohibiting the sale of bulk
water?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to assure the House and the hon. member
that the report of the IJC does come down exactly along the lines
of the government's approach, which is to prevent the interbasin
transfer of water to protect water sources in Canada and to
protect them from exotic species or other risks that may come
from transfers of water from one area to another.
We believe that if this approach is adopted with the provinces
we will have a complete protection of Canada's water supply
throughout the country and in every part of Canada, border or
otherwise.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this human resources boondoggle has hurt so many people.
Downline employees were told in 1996 to ignore the Financial
Administration Act. Now these same people are being harassed for
breaking the rules and placed on call 24 hours a day to supply
information to protect the minister.
As well, taxpayers place their trust in the government when they
hand over their hard earned money. The government broke that
trust too. Worse, neither the Prime Minister nor the human
resources minister has the humility to apologize to anyone. Why
does being a Liberal mean never having to say you are sorry?
The Speaker: Order, please. The question is out of
order. Go to the second question.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in a recent interview with the Women's Television
Network the human resources minister was given three
opportunities to apologize to the Canadian taxpayers for
mismanaging their money and yet she refused.
1150
By the way, Mr. Speaker, Canadians pay more in taxes than they
do for food, shelter and clothing.
How can this minister possibly justify not apologizing, let
alone justify this blatant abuse of hard earned taxpayer money?
The Speaker: The question is in order. The hon. Minister
of Human Resources Development.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the context of this whole undertaking
we know what is really going on here. That party does not
believe that the Government of Canada can participate in the
lives of Canadians and ensure that everyone has an opportunity to
benefit from this great nation.
In the context of grants and contributions from my department,
we are ensuring that Canadians with disabilities get a chance to
be part of our economy, that young people get a chance to get
that very important first job and go on to be successful
contributors, that in areas of high unemployment, in northern
British Columbia, northern Ontario and Atlantic Canada, that we
are there to—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is now four months since Ralph Klein launched his
private hospital plan and all we get from the health minister is
whimpering from the sidelines.
First he says to wait for the bill, then to wait for the
amendments and now to wait for the regulations, by which time of
course it will be too late.
I have asked the health minister before and I will ask him again
today: Do Canadians have to go to bed one more night without
knowing whether their government will take action on Bill 11 and
whether or not public health care will be there for them in the
future?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have already declared publicly my strong belief that Bill 11 is
bad policy. Based on evidence in Alberta itself, it will cause
longer waiting lists and more costs.
However, we do not know whether Bill 11 will become law. Premier
Klein may yet qualify it. He may yet amend it. Or, as he has
done twice in the past, he may listen to the people of Alberta
and withdraw it.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's aboriginal people have been held in captive poverty for
decades, robbed of their culture, robbed of their families,
robbed of their economical opportunities.
The most recent budget failed to provide sufficient dollars for
aboriginal housing and health care. If that was not bad enough,
now they face the danger of private health care because of this
health minister's failure to take on Ralph Klein.
What is this minister afraid of? If the minister truly supports
universal health care, why does he not tell Ralph Klein today
that Bill 11 must go and why does he not put sufficient dollars
into our health care system?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member is quite wrong of course. She knows of this
government's commitment. She knows the action we have already
taken. She knows that we have said in the budget and since that
we are determined to do what is right for Canadians.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
this weekend Liberal members will be discussing Progressive
Conservative agriculture policy once again. Under priority
resolution No. 27 they will be asking for the reinstatement of
the GRIP program, ironically the same program that this
government killed in 1995.
I wonder if the minister of agriculture can tell us today if he
will be supporting that resolution and reinstate GRIP.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will tell the member one thing we will
not be discussing at the convention this weekend and that is the
fact that we will not be putting the agriculture department in
with other departments. The hon. member should look back at his
platform before the last election. They were even going to do
away with the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
assume that means, yes, he will be supporting the reinstatement
of GRIP.
In the 1994 auditor general's report, the total administration
costs for GRIP and crop insurance was less than 2% of the program
dollars. Right now AIDA is seven times that amount in
administration costs.
Will the minister now admit that AIDA was the wrong program and
perhaps we should be going back to GRIP?
1155
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government has demonstrated very
clearly that it will be there to assist farmers as much as it
possibly can.
In closing, I thank the hon. member for his interest in the
Liberal convention this weekend. I know he is looking for a
place for a home and we would welcome him.
* * *
CANADA POST
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the parliamentary secretary to the minister
responsible for Canada Post.
E-commerce is growing rapidly worldwide with more and more
Canadians ordering products through the Internet. Is Canada Post
ready to participate in the tremendous opportunity presented by
e-commerce?
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like the hon. member for Peterborough to note that Canada
Post is a world leader in the distribution business and has
developed many innovative online solutions.
E-parcel helps Canadian small businesses set up websites to
sell their products online. E-parcel allows e-commerce shoppers
to choose how quickly their purchases are delivered and at what
cost. With e-parcel, Canada Post is proving to be an active
player in the new world of electronic commerce.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, you have to admire the chutzpah of the Minister of Human
Resources Development.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I think you should get by
the first line and give us the rest of the question.
Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, you have to admire the
chutzpah of the Minister of Human Resources Development. First,
she administers the bungling of a billion dollars of taxpayer
money. She then botches every one of her attempts to hide the
facts. She fumbles every attempt to get out from under this
scandal, and yet she has the conceit to stand here day after day
and smirkingly insist that she is competent.
When does the minister expect to receive her Oscar for smirking
arrogance?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. Those words, at the very
best, are borderline. I see the Deputy Prime Minister on his
feet. If he wishes to answer, I will let him.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. member wants to ask a sensible question, I
will give him two other words which more accurately describe his
question and the questions of the Reform Party. When it comes to
his questions, he used the same language. His questions are all
gornisht and absolute narishkite.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Order, please. I have no way of knowing
whether or not those words are parliamentary.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while more and
more grant scandals keep coming to light at Human Resources
Development Canada and millions of dollars in grants are spent
without creating a single job, the minister is abandoning
hundreds of older workers who find themselves out of work when
plants shut down.
1200
How can she squander the money of Human Resources Development
Canada and do nothing for older workers, like those of the
Celanese plant in Drummondville, who will lose their jobs on
March 31 and will be doomed to despair?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed we are doing something for older
workers and we are doing it in partnership with the provinces
including the province of Quebec.
I am glad to say and to repeat again that as a result of the
hard work of Canadians and of the government we have unemployment
levels at the lowest they have been since Montreal hosted the
Olympics.
* * *
CRTC
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the industry minister has received petitions on a recent CRTC
decision which would abandon affordable telecommunication
services in rural and remote communities.
The decision runs against the Prime Minister's beliefs that the
redistribution of wealth is one of Canada's greatest successes.
The high cost regions must be respected and kept connected. Has
the industry minister recommended to cabinet to overrule this bad
CRTC decision?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, both the Saskatchewan and Manitoba governments have
filed a joint appeal of the CRTC's decision with respect to high
cost service areas. The consultation process that is required
under section 12 of the Telecommunications Act has been launched
both by Gazette notice and by requests of the provinces.
In the meantime I want to assure the member that affordability
and availability of service is a key part of the government's
connecting Canadians strategy. It is fundamental to this
strategy that Canadians in every part of Canada have regular
affordable access not just to basic telephony but to Internet
service.
* * *
LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, this
weekend Liberal members attending the convention will be voting
on a resolution about adopting a strategy for Atlantic Canada
called “Catching a New Wave”.
We do know that for the most part Liberal public policy has
really missed the boat when it comes to Atlantic Canada. One
component of “Catching a New Wave” is to develop a modern
shipbuilding policy that is non-subsidy driven and incentives
based such as revising the leasing regulations for Revenue
Canada.
My question is for the Minister of Industry. Will the minister
be supporting this resolution? If it does pass, will he be
ignoring it as he has—
The Speaker: I cannot find a connection here to the
administrative responsibility of the government. This has to do
with a convention. I see the hon. Minister of Industry rising to
his feet. I judge this question to be out of order. If he
wishes to answer it, he may.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in order or out of order I want to assure the hon.
member that we are concerned with the state of the shipbuilding
industry in Canada. That is why I have taken the time to meet
with union representatives, with owner representatives and with
the organizations that represent shipbuilders and ship users
across Canada.
The simple answer is not as easy as the hon. member might think.
The problems that are implicit in the industry are ones that
arise not just domestically for Canada but out of a 40%
overcapacity worldwide and the facing of increasing subsidies in
various parts of the world.
I would like to ask the hon. member if he thinks he is prepared
to suggest to his electors that they put increasing subsidies
into the shipbuilding industry.
* * *
1205
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I sent over a note to alert the human resources minister
to the fact that I would raise this point of order. It arises
out of question period.
In response to a question the hon. minister quoted directly from
a letter that she had from her deputy minister. I would ask that
she table that letter now.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to your ruling only
recently, I am sure the hon. member is not asking now that the
letter be tabled before it is fully translated and prepared.
I will endeavour to ask whether the document can be tabled in
the House. If that is the case we will have it translated and
tabled at the earliest opportunity because at the present time
according to our rules, and it was members across who invoked
them only a few days ago, these letters must now be translated
first and tabled after.
The Speaker: The minister is with us right now. All she
has to do is answer the question. Is the letter translated?
Hon. Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to have
the letter translated and present it.
The Speaker: When the letter is translated it will be
laid upon the table.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, twice you ruled my question out of order. I was a bit
surprised and I would like clarification.
In my opinion in both instances I was asking questions about
direct action of the Department of Human Resources relating both
to internal matters with employees and externally, and you ruled
them out of order.
The Speaker: I listen to the preamble to the question and
then I listen to the formulation of the question. If it deals
with the administrative responsibilities of the government then I
allow it, but I understood the question to be about the Liberal
Party and, as such, I ruled it out of order. My decision stands.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have
the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's
response to three petitions.
* * *
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a letter to Mr.
Robert Marleau regarding order in council appointments, which I
will read:
I am pleased to table in both official languages a number of
order in council appointments made recently by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of
which is attached.
Yours sincerely,
The Hon. Don Boudria.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to the request from the Speaker of the House on
February 8, 2000, and the committee's mandate under Standing
Order 108(3)(a)(iii) I have the honour to present the 19th report
of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
concerning the interpretation and administration of the
provisions of Standing Order 87(6).
I also have the honour to present the 20th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
associate membership of the liaison committee in the House, and I
should like to move concurrence at this time.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
1210
PETITIONS
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions to present. The first one is
signed by hundreds of folks from Manitoulin Island.
The petition notes that in 1989 the Parliament of Canada passed
a motion calling for the abolition of child poverty in Canada. It
calls upon the government to develop a multi-year plan to achieve
that goal.
TAXATION
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition is from quite a number of citizens
of Parry Sound.
The petition calls upon the government to consider changes to
the tax system so that senior citizens, under certain conditions,
could have a reduced income tax upon cashing in RIFs and RRSPs in
order to pay off a mortgage.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition to present today that has been signed by 25
people living in my riding of Peace River.
It urges parliament to ensure that the possession of child
pornography remains a serious criminal offence and that police
forces be given the authority to enforce this law for the
protection of children.
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a petition of many pages from citizens of the Peterborough area
who are concerned about child poverty.
They point out that one in five Canadian children live in
poverty and that the House of Commons in 1989 unanimously
resolved to end child poverty by this year.
The petitioners call upon parliament to use the federal budget
to introduce a multi-year plan to improve the well-being of
Canada's children. They urge parliament to fulfil the promise of
1989.
GENETIC ENGINEERING
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker I have
two petitions concerning the genetic engineering of food, plants
and animals.
The petitioners point out that this practice is still relatively
new but it now involves the manipulation of the most basic
building blocks of life. It can affect normal plants in the
surrounding areas through the spread of pollen. They also point
out that there may be long term genetic effects as a result.
One petition calls upon parliament to introduce clear labelling
of seeds and food products that are genetically engineered so
that farmers and consumers have a choice.
The other petition has a similar preamble but the petitioners
call upon the federal authorities to ensure that non-genetically
engineered seeds will always be available to all Canadian
farmers.
CHILD POVERTY
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am privileged to be able to present a petition signed
by hundreds and hundreds of citizens of Winnipeg and Manitoba who
note that on November 24, 1989, the House of Commons unanimously
resolved to end child poverty in Canada by the year 2000.
They also note that since that time the number of poor children
in Canada has increased by 60%. They call on parliament to keep
its promise and on the federal government to introduce a
multi-year plan to improve the well-being of Canada's children.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be
allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—HEALTH CARE
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party today put a motion on
the floor of the House condemning the government for its failure
to provide Canadians with a long term sustainable plan to address
the crisis in our health care system. First of all I will say
that I reject the opposition motion and then I will put forward a
plan that I think is central to the renewal and the
revitalization of the health care system in Canada.
1215
The national food plan which I am putting forward is something I
have been working on with my colleagues in the greater Toronto
caucus and my colleagues in the western and rural caucuses. We
have been working on this idea for a few months and today we
begin the campaign to promote it.
I feel it is important to put this idea forward in parliament
because there is no greater fundamental to a healthy society than
a healthy food system. We need a healthy food system which works
for the benefit of all Canadians. If we do not have a food
system that works as well as it can, then we cannot achieve our
goals in continually working to build and strengthen a healthy
society.
Key to our health is the food we eat. Fundamental to the food
we eat is the quality, the affordability, the safety, the access
and the security of that food.
Before I move into the details of a national food plan, I want
to recognize an organization that has contributed a lot to
developing this idea, FoodShare of Toronto. Debbie Field and her
team understand the importance of a healthy food system to a
healthy society. The team works each day to make sure that low
income families, seniors and children have access to nutritious,
affordable, safe and high quality food. They distribute the good
food box to thousands of residents throughout Toronto. We salute
them for their work.
Food is a key determinant of our health as a society and the
production, distribution, ownership and control of our food
system is something which my colleagues and I are very excited
about presenting today through a national food plan.
We must begin with the source of our food, and of course that is
the farm. I begin by discussing that source and the beleaguered
state of the family farm in Canada. I will describe the loss of
our processing sector and conclude by outlining some of the key
components.
The farm crisis in the country is real. Never during times of
prosperity have we seen a farm crisis of this magnitude. Some
people blame the farmers. The message is that farm incomes are
low because farmers are doing something wrong. Today the reality
is that farmers are growing chick peas and lentils, they are
raising wild boar, they are using genetically engineered seeds
and high tech seeding equipment, but for all of this investment
and innovation farmers have been rewarded with the lowest net
farm incomes since the 1930s.
The farm crisis is hitting farmers all around the world, so that
when one looks at the worldwide nature of this crisis it is hard
to believe that our Canadian farmers are to blame or that our
farmers alone can solve the problem. We must be aware that
farmers are not the entire agricultural community. Farmers are
one part of the larger agri-food sector, which includes input
manufacturers, food processors, meat packers, restaurant owners
and others.
Just think about the food processing sector. From milling to
malt, from pasta to beef packing, foreign ownership and control
of our food processing has been increasing. The global
agricultural system is not serving our farmers as predicted nor
is it serving the Canadian economy. It is not serving Canadian
consumers either. For example, the price of corn has not changed
in 20 years, but the price of corn flakes has tripled. Wheat
prices have not changed either, but bread prices have tripled.
This says something about the efficiency of our farmers.
Canada's farmers are so efficient that they can produce food for
the same prices they did 25 years ago.
In contrast, processors and retailers have tripled the prices
they charge for their services.
1220
Canada's food system, indeed the world's food system, while
working to the benefit of some, is not working to the benefit of
everyone, least of all family farms. The main reason I believe
that we are in this position is because we do not have a national
food plan. A national food plan is central in renewing the
health care system of the country.
We need a plan that will safeguard the family farm, maintain
Canadian ownership of our strategic food processing sector; one
which will create jobs, protect food safety and ensure that
farmers receive a fair share of the consumer's grocery store
dollar. We need a food plan that puts the needs and interests of
farm families and the urban families who eat the food at the
forefront of our concerns.
First, we need to maintain Canadian control of key industries.
Canada is about to lose its railways. We may also lose control
of our grain companies. We are down to one company that is
making tractors in this country. It is outrageous with the land
mass we have and our commitment to agriculture that we may soon
cease to make our own tractors.
Former Conservative Alberta Premier Lougheed recognized that in
a recent speech when he said “Democratic control requires
control over one's economy”. We are losing that control. We
must take immediate and decisive action, both with regard to
agriculture and the larger Canadian economy.
We must act now and immediately to renew the Competition Act.
That act must assess large investments in Canada on the basis of
their effects on Canada's farmers and Canada's food production
system. To remain within the parameters of existing and
international trade agreements we must use the tax system to
create incentives for broad based co-operative ownership of vital
food processing companies, co-operative ownership by Canadian
farmers and consumers. This would ensure that these companies
remain Canadian owned and controlled. This is central and this
is related to the redesign and reconstruction of the health care
system in this country.
With regard to our railways, the federal government should
examine its options under the existing trade agreements.
Canadian railways transport our food, serve remote communities,
act as a link in our national defence system and transport
Canadian minerals and forestry products. Surely when it comes to
key strategic infrastructure such as our railways the Canadian
government has options other than merely watching helplessly as
those companies pass from Canadian hands.
Another component of our national food plan would be to ensure
that farmers receive a fair share of the consumer's grocery store
dollar or the restaurant dollar. There are several ways to do
this. As a first step, one which will cost little or nothing, I
would propose legislation which requires that every grocery item
bear a prominent label listing the farmer's share of the retail
price. I believe that Canadians would form a new understanding
of the farm income crisis if they were reminded every day that
the farmer gets only a nickel from the $1.40 loaf of bread and
only 14 cents on a $15 case of beer.
I want to salute a former minister of agriculture who is in our
Chamber today, the hon. Ralph Ferguson, for all the tremendous
work he has done on “Compare the Share” in Canada. It has just
been unbelievable. We challenge the grocers of Canada to deal
with the challenge of giving the farmers their share.
The linkage between food and health care is undeniable. Because
I have only had 10 minutes today, I want to refer listeners to
our website, www.nationalfoodplan.com, because I am hoping that
Canadians will realize that as we rebuild the health care system
we must have a sound system for food in this country.
1225
[Translation]
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, I listened to
the member speaking about the health care system and nutrition.
We know that a good diet is necessary to prevent disease. This
is prevention, and I agree that it is important for future
generations.
But are there any solutions for those who are sick right now,
those who are waiting in emergency rooms, those for whom there
are no beds, the sickest members of our society? Does his
government have any solutions for existing problems?
This is very serious and if the necessary action is not taken
today, we will no longer have a health care system ten years
from now. I would like my colleague's comments on this.
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
question from the member for Shefford.
First, I have been listening to the debate in the House today
and I listened last week when we talked about challenging the
renewal of the health care system. It seems to me that the
debate has always emphasized that the Government of Canada should
simply write cheques to the provinces. I do not believe that is
the way to go. As we design a new health care system in this
country, those issues around prevention, causing Canadians to
become more physically fit, would reduce health care costs
dramatically.
Surgeons appeared before the committee last year and they told
us that for every 10% of Canadians who increased their physical
activity we could decrease health costs by about $5 billion
annually.
The importance of nutritious, healthy food is a challenge in the
country because, by and large, we are all insensitive to the
issue.
As we begin this exchange and the resolution of our health care
system, it is important for the government to send signals to the
provinces that prevention must be very high on the list. I
believe that in the area of prevention called the food we eat, we
have to repair and rebuild our food source, and that is the
family farm of this country. I appeal to the member from the
Progressive Conservative Party to join us and help us build a
national food plan which will be the envy of the world.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to the member's comments. My concern is
that we are seeing more and more of our country being taken over
by foreign investment. It has jumped sixfold in the last couple
of years.
I do not disagree about writing cheques, but I wonder whether
anybody will be able to write a cheque in this country because
all of the profits and all of the good jobs will be south of the
line.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I feel that this is a
very important question and I would ask the indulgence of the
House to let me have a little more than 40 seconds to answer it.
The member has recognized a very important point, which is that
the food processing sector in this country has reached a level of
offshore ownership which, in my view, is quite scary. Foreign
control is over 90%. We are going to have to enter a very
rigorous debate on how we can stall and reclaim our control of
these strategic industries within the guidelines of those trade
agreements that exist.
I know that the member thinks that would be a real challenge.
1230
Mr. Speaker, this is critical for the way we go as a nation, so
please let me answer this. I think that all of us in the House
have to look at every clause in every one of those trade
agreements and see how within those trade agreements we can use
things like tax law and other instruments that we have to make
sure that the trajectory totally changes on it and we reclaim it.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, thank you
for giving me the opportunity to speak to the supply day motion.
For those who are not really familiar with that, it is an
opportunity for the opposition to set the topic of debate and to
allow a firm vigorous debate on a specific issue. This is a Tory
supply day motion asking for the federal Liberals to adopt a long
term sustainable plan to address the crisis in health care.
Crisis is a strong word. It is not a word that I use lightly.
Health care is under significant stress in Canada and having a
debate on this issue is a good idea.
I listened to the Minister of Health today and he basically said
that there is a plan in place. That plan requires some
co-operation and some significant alteration so that we can have
a sustainable health care system. Then he went on to say that
funding was one component of that plan, innovation another
component and co-operation the third component. I would like to
talk about those three things one after another: the funding
component for health care, innovation, and co-operation.
Where are we with funding? Figures can be used to disguise
facts. On the issue of funding, the figure that matters to
Canadians is the per capita spending on health in Canada which is
lower in 2000 than it was in 1993 when the Liberals took power.
They can take the figures any way they want.
Anybody listening to the Minister of Health today would have
heard what he said about the federal share of publicly funded
health care dollars. The figure that he took out of the document
which he quoted was the federal share of publicly funded dollars.
He said that the taxpayer funded component of health care in
certain provinces that get equalization payments is relatively
high. Every single province that he quoted was a provinces that
gets equalization payments. He used figures as high as 60% plus
in those provinces as the share of publicly funded dollars.
The figure that matters to the individual in the street is not
whether equalization, other means, tax points and whatnot fund
health care in the maritimes. What matters to Canadians is the
share of per capita dollars that the federal government is
spending. Is it spending a share that allows it to call the
shots? In fact in much of Canada it is not.
The figure I am using now is the federal cash share of overall
health care spending. In those cases it is down in the
neighbourhood of 12%, 13%, 15% in those provinces that do not
have equalization payments.
Those figures are in the document that the minister quoted from.
I say let us stop fooling with the figures and let us talk about
the one that really matters, which is the per capita expenditures
of cash from the federal government.
Health care has a couple of other big problems. I will not
ascribe blame on this issue. Waiting lists have grown. We have
fallen behind in technology. We have an aging population. The
minister has finally stated publicly that the status quo is not
sufficient and on that issue we agree.
1235
The issue of funding is one which the public needs to be aware
of. The motion calls for sustainable funding. The motion calls
for predictable funding. The motion calls for, in my estimation,
some buildup of the funding as the population ages more and as
inflation comes along.
I do not see anything of that kind of commitment from the
federal government. In fact, none of the funds that have been
promised in the last few years are certain. None of the funds are
growing with inflation or with aging. They can be lowered and
raised at will by the health minister, by the finance minister
and by the Prime Minister. That is the funding component. Much
of what we say in the health care debate is on the issue of
funding. That is a component which needs to be discussed. I
believe the funding needs to be predictable. I believe the cash
funding needs to grow with both aging and inflation.
Innovation is the second big topic I want to address. The
minister has said the status quo will not do and we agree. Stated
very plainly his solution is that Canada needs universal home
care and universal pharmacare. That is the minister's solution.
This is the innovation the Minister of Health has specifically
spoken of. He said to the provinces “Join us and we will pay
50% of universal pharmacare and universal home care”.
I remember the promises that came from a health minister which
got medicare started who promised then “Join us in medicare and
we will fund 50% of the cash needed for health care”. That
promise was broken. In my mind, is there any wonder that the
provinces are somewhat hesitant to go down this road when we
already have visible problems with our health care system.
The third area I want to talk about is co-operation. The
minister's own words were “We need to co-operate. We need to
have a discourse on this that is free of partisan commentary”.
Then he turned around and said that we need to get rid of any
proposals that suggest two tier Americanized health care. That
is a fair comment and one which I share. Two tier American style
health care has no merit for Canada.
Let us look at the provincial efforts at innovation and
co-operation. The provinces are ready to look at alternatives.
In fact Quebec has been sending a number of its patients to the
U.S. for cancer therapy. That is an alternative that has been
looked at by Quebec. In fact B.C. has done exactly the same
thing. That does not seem to me to be a made in Canada solution
for our health care problems.
On the issue of public administration, one maritime province has
chosen to administer its health care system with a private
concern. This fits with the principles of our health act.
Alberta has recently brought in a proposal to contract out using
taxpayers' funds for some overnight surgery. This is an issue
that has received vigorous condemnation from many Canadians. The
health minister's response to this has been an uninvited visit to
Alberta where he made a speech at the University of Calgary and
his words today “This bill is bad policy”.
What exactly is Alberta's Bill-11? I have a copy of it here and
I have gone through it carefully. Without supporting or
criticizing the bill, I think we should at least know what it
contains. I will read from Alberta's Bill-11 so the Canadian
public will know what is in it.
1240
It is called, and this is an antithesis for all those who
criticize it, the health care protection act. I am going to go
over the bill not from some esoteric perspective, but I will read
from the bill as to what it has in it.
It commits Alberta to the principles of the Canada Health Act,
well known to anyone involved in the health care system.
One other big principle is that this bill makes it illegal to
operate a private hospital in Alberta. The words are so plain
that no one can misunderstand: “No person shall operate a
private hospital in Alberta”. It goes on to define what a
private hospital is by saying exactly what a public hospital is.
Only public hospitals will be allowed to provide the full range
of hospital services, including emergency rooms, diagnostic and
medical services, and major surgeries. It sounds pretty
straightforward to me.
It goes on to talk about what the bill is designed to do, which
is to allow overnight stay for what has traditionally only been
done in day surgery facilities. Specifically a surgical facility
allowed under this procedure would only provide a limited range
of surgical services. It would not be a full service hospital.
It goes on to state that only the College of Physicians and
Surgeons, my college, can decide what would be provided and only
it can accredit these facilities.
One of the big concerns about a private facility doing
procedures in any part of the country is that queue jumping could
take place. This bill specifically makes it illegal to queue
jump. It also makes it illegal to charge facility fees for
insured services.
One other argument against a private facility doing anything
surgical in Canada is upgrading. In other words for example,
someone would come to that facility looking for cataract surgery.
The cataract surgery would be upgraded and made more expensive.
In this bill that is specifically prohibited. It is specifically
prohibited with fines.
It goes on to say that if a person chooses to upgrade a service
such as a fibreglass cast or foldable lens for cataract surgery,
it must be in writing, the cost must be shown and a person must
sign in full agreement. The person can back out if he or she
changes his or her mind. It goes even further to say that if an
upgraded product or service is the only thing that is available,
it cannot be charged for. Finally, unlawful charges can be
recovered under this bill on upgraded surgical services.
The bill goes on to talk about uninsured services that can be
done and are done in every single province of Canada. These are
things like plastic surgery and new technologies that are not
accepted yet under our Canadian health plan. These must be done
in compliance with the Canada Health Act in this bill. These
must be done only with a demonstrated need to the regional
district that has contracted them out. The health authorities
have to show that the contract will not harm the publicly funded
system. They also have to show how they will benefit the public
system.
The other concern is that this sort of process might well invite
out of country facilities to come in and take up this new
proposal.
The only way this could happen would be for the public to approve
it through their government and the reasons for authorizing such
a facility will be made public. Any contract would be made
public.
1245
In my view, this bill clearly and plainly lays out the
mechanisms whereby short term, what has been day surgery, can
have an overnight stay.
The minister himself on bill 11 has been asked plainly by the
Government of Alberta to rule on whether or not the bill complies
with the Canada Health Act. He said that he will wait until all
the potential amendments are made and all the regulations are in
place before making his ruling on bill 11. Members will note
that he has not once said that the bill goes counter to the
Canada Health Act. He has said that in his opinion it is bad
policy.
I want to go over the clinics in the country that are already
functioning under the very same proposals that are expressed
here. We have new techniques in prostrate surgery that are not
paid for under medicare. Cosmetic surgery, the plastic surgery,
is not covered under medicare. Therapeutic abortions; every
single private facility in Canada that does therapeutic abortions
is doing it under this type of proposal. New radiological
techniques, the exploratory techniques like biopsies using
imaging that we did not have when medicare started and new forms
of cancer therapy are not covered under our medicare system.
Bill 11, by my reading, controls and regulates these new
innovative therapies and frees up, if it works the way I foresee
it, some hospital beds in the regular hospital system which will
have significant benefits to the public.
The debate on such an issue, if it persists being the opening
for a two tier American style medicare, is in my view doing no
service to the medicare debate. This debate is coming whether or
not any politician likes it. If the debate comes, will this idea
be reviewed, critiqued and improved, then watched to see if it is
successful or not, and removed if it is not and expanded if it
is? I am convinced that the European countries that have already
done this with their taxpayer funded health care systems, which
are the equivalent to Canada's, have already shown that there are
risks, that there can be gains and that we should at least be
innovative.
The health minister has said that funding is one issue, that
innovation is another issue and that co-operation is the third
issue. I would ask my colleagues, as we enter this debate, to do
this not with these, if you will, old-fashioned buzzwords, but by
actually looking at the issues and reviewing the legislation, if
new legislation and new ideas come forth.
I will end my commentary with another little issue and that is
the issue of hepatitis C. I do not often get an opportunity any
more to raise that issue. The poor patients in my own part of
the world who were infected by tainted blood, those who have been
covered by the compensation program that was agreed to by the
federal government, have waited two years now since the program
was announced.
They have not received a nickel. The lawyers have now been paid
substantial amounts of money. I believe that is one other
indication that the victims do not have a very strong voice in
this place.
1250
I urge my colleagues across the way, who have a more potent
ability than I to bring these processes to an end and to see
those victims compensated, to get the health minister off the
excuse track and onto the let us get this thing finished track.
The legal route was not the best way to see those patients cared
for. I will not belabour this and criticize any further but this
issue deserves immediate attention and is long overdue.
I conclude by saying that the motion asking for sustainable
funding that is predictable and growing with inflation and with
our aging population is one that I personally support. I ask my
colleagues to reflect on whether or not any of the funding that
has been promised is in fact permanent funding or could it be
withdrawn at the whim of the health minister.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Madam Speaker,
I will not say this very often, particularly with the official
opposition, but I must say that I respect this individual member
for Macleod as a physician. I respect him as a member of
parliament and I appreciate the comments he made today.
Being a member of the medical profession, this member will
recognize that there are a number of stakeholders within the
health care field: the doctors in his profession, the nurses in
the nursing profession and the employees in administration.
I ask the member, who is very close to the situation, how other
members of his fraternity, those in the medical profession, feel
about sustainable funding? I think I already know that answer.
I would also like him to answer a question about what his
membership in the fraternity think about an expansion of the
services that he talked about in bill 11 in the province of
Alberta. Are they supportive or are they, like most members of
society today, split on that particular issue?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Before calling on the
hon. member for Macleod, I would like to mention that there are
several members wanting to ask questions. I would ask all of you
to please be as brief as possible.
Mr. Grant Hill: Madam Speaker, this is a stakeholder driven
issue in many cases. Specifically on the issue of what does the
medical profession in Alberta, my association, think of this
bill. They are split. They are asking for amendments to this
bill to make certain that there are no concerns.
On the other issue of stakeholders, I will use a specific
example of what is best for the patient. The nursing profession
has a huge issue in terms of health care. Even the staff who
clean the hospitals have a huge interest in this issue. If we
just look at the administrative level, the hospital cleaners, and
compare the hospital cleaning staff with the hotel cleaning staff
who basically do the same job, the hospital cleaning staff is
paid double what the hotel cleaning staff is paid. I only bring
that up to say that we sometimes forget the patient and the
patient should be the centre of our concerns on health.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the principles of the Canada Health Act are universality,
accessibility, comprehensiveness, portability and publicly
funded. The member well knows that.
The member needs to comment on the issue of accessibility,
portability and comprehensiveness. As an example, in Ontario
there are only five doctors who perform the procedure called a
spinal fusion.
Two of those doctors are in the Mississauga hospital in my own
riding. The member would well understand that if private clinics
were set up, even though they might be publicly funded to provide
that, there would be a drain on the public health system to
provide the human resources and medical resources, personnel and
otherwise, to staff and equip these private facilities. It means
that the accessibility and the comprehensiveness of the services
available to the public at large would be reduced.
1255
Since the experience in Alberta has shown that private health
care is more expensive, has longer waiting lists and violates the
spirit of the Canada Health Act, does the member not agree that
these private clinic arrangements as proposed by bill 11 in
Alberta would be inappropriate?
Mr. Grant Hill: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his
question. I know he is as concerned about health care as are
other members in the House.
Why do we have five specialists doing spinal fusion in Ontario?
That is the real question. Why have we lost some of our best
trained, most competent surgeons to Europe and the U.S.? The
reason we have lost them is that the facilities we have here in
Canada have fallen behind immensely. There are 1.1 MRI imaging
facilities per 100,000 in Canada and 3.6 per 100,000 in Germany.
This is a multifaceted concern. I would prefer to bring another
five spinal fusion specialists to Ontario and set them up on this
side of the border instead of on the U.S. side.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have a problem with Canada's health care that has been
bothering me for quite some time. It is with regard to what we
have done with our hep C victims or rather what the government
has refused to do for them here in Canada. We know many of them
contracted this disease through our health care system and yet
the government has refused to make justifiable payments to these
victims. Some of them are desperately in need of care and
funding and are in fear of dying.
I would like to know if the hon. member has any idea what he
would recommend the government do with regard to these victims.
Mr. Grant Hill: Madam Speaker, it is inaccurate to say
that there has been no compensation planned for any of the
victims. Half of the victims, those between 86 and 90, were
promised a fairly substantial amount of money. Many were left
out completely except for—and this is interesting—Ontario and
Quebec have both provided provincial compensation for the victims
who were left out.
The saddest thing to my mind is that this process had to go
through what I consider to be legal wrangling rather than the way
the compensation program was handled for HIV victims of tainted
blood. There was no legal wrangling involved there. These funds
were laid out and dispersed very quickly.
I have a couple of patients in my constituency who are so ill
that I do not think they will see the compensation they have been
promised. It is scant help to them to know that they will get
some funds after they are deceased. It is one of those chapters
in Canadian history that when it is all written down will be one
of the saddest sagas in terms of our history. The regulators let
these individuals down. The tests were available. Krever said
that we should give them help. This is a dreadful saga in
Canadian history.
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
bill 11 contains an explanation of enhanced medical services. As
a medical professional, does the member think it is reasonable
that a government, which is as bent on privatization and thereby
can delist services and move more and more services into the
private sector, should be the same body that can decide what is
an enhanced medical service?
Does the hon. member think there should be some professional body
that includes Canadians which would determine what is an enhanced
medical service?
1300
Can the member not tell us that there is an incredible need for
accountability in the health care system? We are going to have
to move into it before we can throw more money at it. It is
clear with the amount of savings that Doug Angus and the health
economists have said are already in the system at $7 billion a
year that there has to be some ability to address the unnecessary
surgery, unnecessary lab tests, unnecessary visits to the doctor
in the present system. We must begin to deal with the
accountability in the system before people can cry about
underfunding.
Mr. Grant Hill: Madam Speaker, to my physician colleague
across the way, I think those are both very sensible suggestions.
First off, should the government be the one that delists
services? In my view absolutely not. The delisting of services
should be done by public input through professional bodies. The
nursing and medical professions should certainly be involved.
That is a very good and significant point. Of course delisting
of services has been done without much input and I think in some
cases very foolishly.
On the issue of accountability, the accountability in our health
care system is not good. Here is my simplistic way of looking at
it. As long as there is no interchange with the patient and the
provider, it is free. There should at least be a bill presented
to every patient for every service in Canada stating how much it
costs, the date that it was received and the patient should sign
for it. They would then look at the bill. They would have to
pay one nickel of the bill. They would look at it and say, “An
ultrasound costs $69.30 and I thought it cost about $5”. That is
the sort of innovation on accountability which I think we need.
I think my colleague across the way knows full well that a lot
of things are done in this medical system for legal purposes as
well. I would like to address that.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is
with great pleasure that I take part in this debate on the
motion brought forward by our colleague from the Progressive
Conservative Party.
However, I must say that I am somewhat uncomfortable with the
wording of the motion. First of all, I must say that we, in the
Bloc Quebecois, recognize that the issue of health should be of
concern to all parliamentarians. I will have the opportunity to
get back to that later on. There are many factors which prompt
us to wonder how services will be delivered and how the health
system will be structured in the future.
However, the wording of the motion brought forward by the
Progressive Conservative Party suggests that it is the
responsibility of parliament to propose a national plan for our
health care system. I think that is a mistake.
Like all my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, I would have been
more comfortable with a motion asking that transfer payments be
restored to their 1993-1994 level. Everyone knows that, to all
intents and purposes, money that was supposed to go to the
provinces was taken from them without their permission.
As mentioned many times by our colleague from
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, our finance critic, these funds to which
the provinces were entitled but which they did not get total $33
billion.
Since the first health cuts in 1993-1994, Quebec alone has had to
make up for a $6.5 billion shortfall.
[English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. We are discussing a very important function in Canada, our
health care system. However, I do not see a quorum in here.
1305
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We will check for
quorum.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): There is no quorum at the
moment. Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We now have a quorum.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Speaker, I invite all my colleagues to
take their seat. I have prepared an excellent speech that I would
like to dedicate to them.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: We are waiting for the popcorn.
An hon. member: They keep on popping.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Let us stay calm and continue. I know this is a
difficult moment for the government members, but as my colleague
said, they are waiting for the popcorn, and another colleague
added that they must keep on popping. But let us move on.
Since 1993-94, $33 billion have been cut in the transfer
payments. Members can imagine how destabilizing that must be for
the provinces. I remind the House that, for Quebec, that
represents a cumulative sum of $6.5 billion since 1993-94. On a
yearly basis, that amounts to one billion dollars.
It is not insignificant that every premier, when they met at a
conference here in Hull—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Speaker, could we have some order? I feel
so upset. I am a sensitive man and I need serenity to be able to
work.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order, please. I ask
hon. members to listen very attentively with me to the hon.
member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Speaker, I ask that the clock be reset.
From disruption to disruption, one is bound to get thrown off
one's trend of thoughts.
As I was describing how difficult the situation can be for the
provinces that make budgets and have a constitutional
responsibility to provide frontline services and restructure the
health network. That is why I would have shown much more
solidarity with the motion tabled by the Tories, amongst whom I
have many friends, if reference had been made to restoring
transfer payments.
There is no such reference, which suggests that this government,
this parliament, may be responsible for national standards. We
believe it is not.
I will digress for a moment, if I may, before getting to the
bottom of this matter. Look at what is going on in health care.
Under the constitution, the federal government has two main
responsibilities. Because of its fiduciary responsibility toward
aboriginal peoples, the federal government manages the health
care system for the first nations. It also has a responsibility
toward the military. One has to see the bad shape in which the
health care system for these two groups is.
It took the minister some nerve to get up and offer to the
provinces a cost shared program for home care. I tell the
minister, with all due respect “Sit down, calm down, shut up, we
have heard enough. You have no business interfering in community
health programs. Mind your own business and withdraw from this
system”.
If the health minister wants to help, he can restore transfer
payments.
Let us get that straight.
For the first time in the history of mankind, the population on
this side of the hemisphere—although I am not suggesting the
situation is the same everywhere—is living longer than ever.
It is easy to understand that, in a society where people live
longer, some will be in good health, but others will need more
specialized care. This will put enormous structural pressure on
our health care system. Let we give members a few examples that
will help them understand.
1310
Let us see how many years it will take before people over 65
represent 25% of the population instead of the present 12%. In
other words, the time it will take before the group of people
over 65 represents one quarter of the population.
In Quebec, it will take 35 years. In 35 years, one quarter of
all Quebecers will be over 65. It will take a little longer in
other societies like English Canada. It will take on average 45
years in English provinces. In Germany, it will take 70 years.
In France, our motherland—in history books, they used to talk
about Marianne—it will also take 70 years.
It is no wonder that Quebec is so vocal in this debate and so
committed to it. The Quebec government will be facing, very
shortly, challenges that may be less noticeable in European
countries. If we want to provide quality services to our fellow
citizens—and I must remind you, Madam Speaker, that you will be
among the people who need those services, as well as a vast
majority of MPs—now is the time to get our health care system
ready to provide services to these people.
Various structural pressures are coming into play. We are
$1 billion short in transfer payments for Quebec. This is not an
insignificant amount of money.
According to Premier Lucien Bouchard, who, it is worth repeating
it, is the leader of a very good government for Quebecers, half
of the $1 billion that the federal government should reinvest,
put back in transfer payments should go to health care, and the
other half to the other two budgetary items.
What would we do with this $500 million? Let me give a few
examples. This amount of $500 million represents 25% of the
budget of Montreal's hospitals.
I now want to give a personal testimony. During our week off, I
met with hospitals' CEOs. I met with the CEO of the CHUM,
Mr. Douville, as well as with the CEO of the Maisonneuve-Rosemont
hospital, Mr. Ducharme, and I spent a good hour with them.
We looked at the situation in their respective institutions. Let
me tell you that, at this rate, by the end of the fiscal year,
which is very near, every health care institution in Montreal
will end the year with a 10% to 12% deficit. I did not take the
time to check in Quebec city, or even Jonquière, but I will one
day, because I suspect that the trend is relatively similar.
What does it mean? It does not mean that the management is not
good, not at all. If the same thing is happening in every
hospital, it means there is a basic trend. Every health care
institution will end up with a $10 to $12 million deficit.
Let us take the CHUM as an example. As we know, the CHUM is the
result of the merger of Notre-Dame, Saint-Luc and Hôtel-Dieu
hospitals. It has a $400 million budget, which is quite a lot. On
this $400 million, the shortfall in the money managers need for
their various programs and do not have will be $40 million.
Therefore, Quebec finance minister Landry is quite right when he
says that it is not a matter of money. Yes, we need to think
about how we are going to reorganize the health care system.
In the medium term, however, for the next three, four or five
years, it is clear that, without a significant injection of
funds into the system, there will be problems.
The Government of Quebec, with its own money—the National
Assembly has done its part—will inject $2.5 billion into the
system in the next few years. This, however, will not be
enough. We must not assume that the public is not upset, that
they are not angry at seeing the government, with its surpluses
estimated at between $97 billion and $137 billion—it could be
more than $95 billion—doing nothing.
1315
Year after year, our colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, the
Bloc Quebecois finance critic since 1993, has made predictions
and has never been wrong.
I know that the member for Louis-Hébert is closely following,
like me, the career of our finance critic, the member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, and that he has never been wrong in his
predictions. He is much better at it than the Minister of
Finance. He has never been wrong in his predictions. He thinks
the surplus could be over $95 billion.
It is this government's responsibility to restore transfer
payments. There are many backbenchers in the Liberal Party.
There is no shame in being a backbencher as long as one is
strong and can stand one's ground. I ask them to add their
voices to those of the Bloc Quebecois, the Progressive
Conservative Party, the Reform Party and the New Democratic
Party to put pressure on the government.
Liberal backbenchers cannot be content with being what Clémence
Desrochers called backing vocals. I do not know if it means
anything to members, but in a signing group, there are always
the lead signers and the backing vocals.
Liberal backbenchers are what Clémence Desrochers, a great
humorist from Quebec, called backing vocals.
They must not be content with playing second fiddle; they must
express the concerns of Quebecers and also of people from the
other provinces because, I will say it again, there is great
unanimity with regard to health care issues.
I want to give other examples of what we would do with the $500
million that the Premier of Quebec could invest in the health
care system as soon as he got it. This represents the budget of
almost a quarter of Montreal's hospitals or half the budget of
the whole CLSC network in Quebec.
Members know that the CLSCs are a rather unique model that we
have in Quebec. People from all over the world or at least from
North America come to Quebec to learn more about the CLSC
network because it is a unique example of a network totally
focused on the community, particularly for front line services.
What do we find in CLSCs? We find of course all the services
relating to young children, specialized services for people
living through a crisis, and support services for community
organizations. It is therefore important that CLSCs be an
effective and adequately funded network, to continue to provide
services to our fellow citizens.
I want to be very clear: the $500 million we would have if
transfer payments were restored would be fully used. That amount
is the equivalent of the whole budget for home care services.
This is a critical component of the contemporary analysis that
must be made of our health care system. We can be sure that
people will no longer agree to grow old outside their community.
When people get older—regardless of the community in which they
live—their expectations and needs remain the same: they want to
grow old within their natural community.
This is why Mrs. Marois and, before her, Mr. Rochon, her
predecessor, who is an MNA from Quebec City, a colleague of the
hon. member for Louis-Hébert, made the wise decision to move
toward ambulatory care.
What is ambulatory care? It means telling people “You are going
to hospital for an operation, but you are going back home, back
to your community, as soon as possible. There are people,
particularly from the CLSCs, who will help you stay in your
community, in your home”. This approach involves costs.
I have here some figures which I can give about the rise of
costs for Quebec to maintain home care services. Members will
see that it is a huge budget item.
1320
I will have the opportunity to come back to this. I know I still
have a lot of time. Should I run out of time, knowing how
generous the Chair is, I shall borrow some from her and pay her
back next week.
The $500 million could be put to good use. It is four times the
annual budget of the Sainte-Justine hospital for children. It is
more than three times that of the Royal Victoria Hospital, and
it represents one-quarter of the cost of the prescription drug
insurance plan.
I say in all friendship to Liberal backbenchers that the Bloc
Quebecois will not give up. We will continue to ask for health
transfer payments until they are restored.
I am volunteering, with the support of my many colleagues here
today, to travel to every region of Quebec in May.
I will visit the riding of Louis-Hébert, Lake Saint-Jean, Laval. I
will even visit your riding, Madam Speaker, if you invite me. I
am aware of your tradition of generosity and hospitality. We
will explain to Quebecers why it is important to invest
additional resources in the health system.
I also want to address another very important issue, that is,
what is happening in emergency rooms.
They are often a reflection of what is going on in hospitals. It
is equally important for people to understand that local
community service centres are on the frontline, but that when
there is a true emergency or a need for extended health care,
they should go to hospitals.
I have discovered some extremely interesting things that help us
to understand the structural pressure that the system has to
bear.
Last year, there were 50,000 more people brought in on
stretchers to emergency units in Quebec than in 1994-1995. We
cannot, on the one hand, acknowledge the aging of our society
and, on the other hand, think that people will not ask for
health care in various locations where it is provided.
For Quebec only, and I suppose the situation is not much
different in Alberta, Saskatchewan or elsewhere in Canada since
the whole population is aging, there were 50,000 more people
brought in to emergency units. Of that amount, 80% were 65 or
older.
In conclusion, it is not up to this government to establish
national health standards. The best way that this government and
parliament can help people who need health care is to restore
transfer payments in health care to their previous level.
I urge all members, New Democrats, Reformists, Progressive
Conservatives as well as Liberal backbenchers to join the Bloc
Quebecois in putting pressure on the government so that in the
days to come there will be additional money for provinces.
This is the challenge we have to meet. This is the duty we have
to carry out. This is the best thing we can do in the days to
come.
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Madam Speaker,
I will ask a question of my hon. colleague so he can use some of
the three minutes that he lost for the quorum call.
Mr. Murray Calder: Did the Conservatives call for a
quorum?
Mr. Rick Borotsik: We did not. Madam Speaker, the
Liberals never listen to what the hon. member has to say. Quite
frankly he could have taught them something about the health care
system if they had listened.
My question is a serious one. The member talked about the
immediate implementation of transfers to health care. I do not
disagree with that.
We keep hearing in the House all the time that it is not a matter
of money. I think the hon. member spoke very eloquently to the
fact that there is money and it is part of the component of
health care.
1325
We heard recently that in the province of Quebec the finance
minister, Mr. Landry, had a reserve of some $800 million which
was passed on to that province. As I understand from the last
budget it will be put back into health care.
I would like to ask the member a legitimate question. When $800
million are spread over a period of time, all those dollars
cannot be spent in one day. There has to be a somewhat
reasonable expenditure of those funds. I would like the member
to answer as to where and how those dollars will be put back into
the system.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank our
colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party, who forms a
committee of the whole with his two colleagues in the House, for
asking me this vitally important question.
Our colleague knows that Bernard Landry is a man of substance, a
man capable of thinking ahead. The $841 million to which our
colleague refers is an amount placed in trust for future needs.
Had it been used immediately in the government's accounting,
part of it would have had to be allocated to servicing the debt.
Like his colleague the Minister of Health, the Minister of
Finance wanted a massive allocation of resources for health,
rather than paying off the debt now, since we know very well
that, with the Canadian dollar as weak as it is, the debt is
more or less paying itself off automatically. That is the
reasoning behind the handling of that $841 million.
I can assure my colleague, and all members of this House, that
the Parti Quebecois government is going to invest all resources
available to it into health. As I have stated, health costs
rise in the order of 4% annually. We are familiar with how that
4% breaks down.
I have the figures here. Out of a total pressure of 4%,
population growth accounts for 1.3% of that, technological
change, 1% and inflation, 2%. This is why there is a 4% annual
increase in the costs of the health system.
[English]
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, the federal government has been putting
money into health care. In fact we put up $1.3 billion in
emergency funds for Ontario to draw from. At that point in time
Ontario spent about $750 million and it still has $556 million in
a savings account that it has not spent.
My question is for the hon. member across the way. I know
Quebec did the same. It has $700 million sitting in a savings
account in the TD bank. Could the hon. member tell me what rate
of interest it is getting for that money?
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Speaker, I am rather surprised at the
question put by my colleague, whose only contact with me to date
has been friendly teasing from the other side of the House. I
think he looks a bit like the man from Glad, and I say this in
all friendliness.
As far as the rest is concerned, I think that, had my colleague
listened, he would have understood my response to his question.
So, not wanting to improperly use the time of the House, I would
refer him to Hansard, because I have already answered that
question.
1330
[English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, following that same line, I know that the province of
Quebec and the province of Ontario should be congratulated for
their payments toward the hepatitis C victims. The question here
is how much is being saved in interest by making non-payments.
I also know that the federal government has paid the lawyers for
the hepatitis C victims. Perhaps the hon. member could tell me
if he has any idea how much money in interest the federal
government is making by not paying the hepatitis C victims.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question.
I wish to thank the hon. member for such a perceptive question.
Briefly, this government, with a cowardice rarely seen, with a
complete lack of sensitivity, which caused an outcry right
across Canada, decided not to compensate hepatitis C victims who
were infected before 1986 or after 1990.
Anyone who reads the Krever report—I have read it from cover to
cover—can see perfectly well that the government has a
responsibility.
What is the first recommendation of the Krever report? What
does this report say? I do not want parliamentarians across the
way to forget this, because it is a question of compassion, of
helping others. I am ashamed, it makes me sick to think that
this government, with a surplus of $95 billion, was not able to
compensate hepatitis C victims.
What did the Minister of Industry do for these people? What
action was taken by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine,
normally so vociferous, so outspoken in the House? These people
hid behind a mask of insensitivity—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Réal Ménard: These members let them down, when the first
recommendation of the Krever report was for no fault
compensation regardless of date of onset.
We will never forget this.
This government carries the stain of having let down hepatitis C
victims, and it can never be told too often in the House how
badly it behaved in this affair.
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate on behalf of my
colleagues in the NDP caucus in this very important debate.
The first thing I want to say, given the time restrictions on
this opportunity, is “so little time and so much to say”.
There is no doubt, I am sure, in the minds of anyone in this
Chamber that health care is the number one priority of Canadians,
yet this place has spent so little time addressing this very
urgent priority.
Therefore, I want to commend the Conservatives for bringing
forward this motion because it allows us an opportunity to raise
the concerns of Canadians and to hold our government to account
for its dereliction of duty and negligence in the face of
Canadians' priorities and needs.
We may have some disagreement with the wording of the motion, in
that it may not go far enough. We would have liked to have seen
a more explicit reference to our public health care system.
However, we will support the motion because it does in fact take
us one step closer to doing what this government ought to have
done in the first place, and that is to ensure that health care
today is placed on a sure footing with guaranteed, sustained,
predictable funding, something which this government has denied
the people of Canada.
I would be remiss if I did not single out the work of my
colleague, the health critic for the Conservatives, who brought
forward this motion and who has played a very active role in
pursuing issues of concern to Canadians on this whole issue of
public health care and health care in general. Therefore, I want
to commend him for his contribution in the House today.
Having said that—and I know he will not like it when I say
this, nor will any Conservative—I welcome the Conservatives back
into the debate on health care.
I do not have to draw too much attention to that fact because the
media has been careful at scrutinizing the work of this place
over the last three weeks, mentioning that New Democrats have
stood alone in this place day in and day out raising the number
one concern of Canadians.
1335
We noted with chagrin and disappointment that the Conservatives,
the Reform and the Bloc chose not to launch an immediate attack
on the government the day after the budget was released in the
Chamber, when it became apparent that the government was prepared
to do no more than spend a paltry sum of taxpayers' money on
their number one priority: universally accessible, publicly
administered health care.
It gets a little lonely down at this end of the House. It gets
a little lonely when we are raising the number one issue of
Canadians and there is no one here with us.
I regret that we have not had more of a collective approach on
this number one issue over the last three weeks, but it is never
too late. I am therefore very grateful to the Conservatives
today for bringing this motion forward because it is a very
timely motion at a most critical juncture in the history of the
country.
What surprises me more than anything is to hear the Liberals so
clearly and vehemently opposing this motion. I cannot for the
life of me understand why they would oppose a motion which is
basically in line with the rhetoric and promises of the
government. I cannot understand it, except that we are very used
in this place to the political grandstanding of Liberals when it
comes to the number one priority of Canadians.
I regret that the Liberals are playing politics with such an
important issue and I regret that they cannot join with us today,
all parties, and support a motion that at least gets us partway
toward achieving an objective that is important to Canadians
right across the country.
The other thing that is very surprising today is to listen to
the Reform Party. I think this is the first defence I have heard
of Bill 11, outside Ralph Klein and his cronies in Alberta. This
is the very first actual public demonstration of support for that
bill, which is the single most destructive initiative to medicare
in the history of the country.
We know from the news that every group in Alberta, and important
organizations right across the country, have rallied together to
try to stop Bill 11, and for very good reason. We know that the
Alberta Medical Association is opposed to Bill 11. We know that
the United Nurses of Alberta is opposed to Bill 11. We know that
the Canadian Association of Nurses is opposed to Bill 11. We
know that the Catholic bishops in Alberta, and undoubtedly right
across the country, are opposed to Bill 11. We know that the
Friends of Medicare, representing many individuals, senior
citizens and organizations right across the province of Alberta,
are opposed to Bill 11. We even know that the executives of the
oil companies in Alberta are opposed to Bill 11, maybe for
different reasons than the Friends of Medicare; however, what is
clear is that there has not been a single voice of support for
Ralph Klein and his bill that will privatize health care and lead
us down the path of two tier Americanized health care in the
country.
I guess that helps to clear up the picture today, because we
have been treated over the past number of years to subtle
references by Reform members of the need to go forward by going
backward, to go forward by allowing private sector companies to
invade our health care sector and to establish a parallel,
private health care system.
1340
It helps Canadians to know, when it comes to this number one
issue, where they can turn for help and support, and what kind of
danger the country would be in if the Reform Party was allowed to
go one step forward with its destructive, harmful agenda.
Let us be absolutely clear where Reform stands, especially now
as we see the leadership race for the upcoming party, the
Canadian alliance, develop in the House and hear the Reform Party
critic for foreign affairs contemplate entering the race as he
bases his platform on the pursuit of a parallel, private health
care system. Let Canadians know what they are dealing with.
That does not even touch on the sentiments that we hear coming
out of the mouth of Stockwell Day.
I do not think it matters who is the candidate or who is the
next leader of the Reform Party or the Canadian alliance because
they all say one thing and one thing only: “Let us scrap our
universally accessible, publicly administered health care
system”. Whether they say it or not, it really is the case.
They say “Let us move toward an Americanized two tier health
care system”. If people have the money they can access quality
health care services. If they do not, then they take a number
and stand in line.
Canadians reject that approach from coast to coast to coast.
Canadians say with one voice that we will and we can pursue,
manage and maintain a universal health care system. Medicare has
held us in good stead in the past and it is our model for the
future. It is something which we must take forward into the new
millennium.
The motion before us is about the kind of financial stability
which our health care system needs. Although it was not raised
in Oral Question Period by the Conservatives, it flows from the
budget of February 29 when the Minister of Finance stood in the
House and said that the great contribution in the face of this
crisis in health care in Canada would be $2.5 billion divided
between health and education, allocated on a one time basis, and
spread over four years.
As we have said earlier, that is a paltry sum. Peanuts. An
insignificant amount. Hardly an expenditure commensurate to the
task at hand. As our leader has said time and time again, that
announcement represented a two cent commitment for every dollar
the government proposed in tax cuts. That is the commitment of
the government and that is what all of us in the House are
talking about today and raising our voices around.
We must have a commitment on the part of the federal government
to restore the cash it cut out of the system in 1995 when it
brought in the most regressive social policy in the history of
the country, throwing out block funding for health care and
education in CAP and putting in place the CHST, the Canada Health
and Social Transfer. At that time it took $6 billion out of
health care, education and social assistance, the biggest bite
out of social programs in the history of the country, and it has
only partially repaid what it cut.
We have heard what the Liberals do in the face of this. They
know the reality, but they pretend something else. To use the
Prime Minister's own words, the Liberals' words “do not meet
reality”. There is no basis in fact for what the Prime
Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health are
saying when they claim that the federal government's share of
health care funding in the country is up to—what did they say
today? Thirty-three cents on the dollar? That is a total
distortion of reality. That is totally a misuse of the
expenditures allocated for health care and it is not a service to
the task at hand.
We know what the government is doing. It is throwing in tax
points, the cash that is left and equalization payments. It is
adding it all up and saying “Look what we are doing”. The
Liberals themselves have acknowledged in the past that it is only
the cash that determines public spending.
It is only the cash that counts. It is the cash that holds this
country together. It is the cash that ensures we have a national
health care system.
1345
It is totally bogus for the government to suggest that tax
points should now suddenly be considered in this formula. The
Prime Minister himself acknowledged this on March 1, 1995 when he
spoke on a CBC radio program. He said:
A lot of the money has been transferred over years as tax points.
When you transfer tax points, you lose all leverage after that
because you don't collect the money; they collect the money. You
say okay, I will not collect this money, you collect. But after
10 years people don't say that it's tax points coming from the
federal government. They just say this is our own tax. And when
the tax points increase, the value of the tax points increase
over years the cash goes down, and eventually there will be no
cash that will be sent.
Canada was put in that situation because of Conservative policy
leading up to the election of the Liberals as the government in
1993. Maybe this is why the Conservatives have been a little
slow off the mark and why they are a little reluctant to be more
explicit about salvaging a public health care system in their
motion.
I do not need to remind the Conservatives what happened under
Brian Mulroney. It is very important that we do not repeat the
mistakes of the past so we can acknowledge where we went wrong,
correct the errors and move forward in a way that makes sense for
the benefit of all Canadians.
I do not need to remind the Conservatives that under the
Mulroney government the finance legislation was changed three
times in order for the government of the day to diminish cash
payments to health care. I will quote from a report that I
delivered to the finance committee in 1991. I was serving as an
MLA in Manitoba and was acting as the health critic for the NDP
in that province. I quote from a report dated November 25, 1991
in response, ironically and interestingly, to a bill numbered
C-20. I started by acknowledging where it started in 1982. I
said:
It started under the Liberals in 1982, when the then federal
government removed the guarantees supporting cash payments,
lumping the cash and tax point revenues together to determine the
per capita entitlement. The present government—
I was referring to the Mulroney government.
—has used this 1982 change to gut the cash payment entirely,
which it has done in a series of steps over the past six years.
In 1985 the federal Conservatives declared without consultation
that the cash entitlement under the EPF act would be restricted
to economic growth minus two percentage points. Soon after, the
two percentage points became three percentage points. In 1990 a
complete freeze in EPF payments through the 1992 fiscal year was
imposed, and now Bill C-20 will extend that freeze through the
1995 fiscal year.
The impact of these steps are well documented. Federal cash
payments for health care will end, and much more rapidly than
expected, if Bill C-20 is allowed to pass. Bill C-20 is in fact
an admission of the long term negative impact of the federal
funding formula changes and an implicit recognition of the
importance of leverage that comes with the withholding of cash
payments.
That is the crux of the matter: the importance of cash payments
as leverage in terms of holding provincial governments to account
and responsible for adherence to the principles of the Canada
Health Act, the five principles of medicare.
The Liberals did learn a little from the mistakes of the
Conservatives by ensuring in 1995 there was at least a cash
floor. But the problem is the cash floor is down at about $12
billion. With the money added by the government in last year's
budget and this year's budget, we are up to a cash floor of
approximately $15 billion.
That is still more than $3 billion short of what the cash
transfers were for health care in 1995.
1350
No matter what the government wants to say about 25 cents on the
dollar or 33 cents on the dollar, the fact of the matter is it is
15 cents on the dollar if we really look hard. That is precisely
what is wrong with the approach the government has taken. That is
why we have to work together to get back to the 50:50 partnership
that was behind medicare in the first place.
The abdication of responsibility by the federal government and
its failure to ensure stable predictable funding for provincial
health care systems have opened the door to the likes of Ralph
Klein and Ontario's Mike Harris who are bent on privatization and
who are determined to move forward. As soon as the federal
budget was released, they hauled out the sign which said “go
private”. What is inexcusable on the part of the government is
that it has created the Klein monster. It is going to create the
Harris monster by not acting now, by not ensuring stable funding
and by acting in complicity with the likes of Klein and Harris.
Let me specifically refer to something the Liberals do not want
to talk about in the House. Let us look at the 12 point
agreement that was signed by the government in 1996. We all
heard the former Minister of Health, the member from North Bay,
say that she was being pressured into signing the agreement
between Alberta and the federal government which further advanced
the agenda on private clinics and she refused. She had the
courage to stand up against the likes of Albertan politicians who
were determined to open up our public system to private forces.
I had hoped that we would have the same kind of courage from the
present Minister of Health. What did we get instead? Nothing.
He is doing nothing but making broad rhetorical statements and
getting into hot water with Ralph Klein who is throwing insults
his way. He is not standing up with anything concrete. If he is
going to be insulted for doing nothing, he might as well be
insulted for doing something.
We are trying to get the Minister of Health to take a position
on Bill 11. Why stall? Why neglect? As I said earlier, why do
Canadians have to go to bed one more night without knowing
whether their government will take action on Bill 11, and without
knowing whether their treasured public health care system will be
there for them and their families in the future? Why will the
government not act today? The crisis is upon us. We are at a
watershed in the history of this country. Let us go forward.
As I have said to the Minister of Health, act today, do not
delay and stand up for our most treasured national medicare
program that has served this country so well.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must inform the
House that I have received notice from the hon. member for
Langley—Abbotsford. He is unable to move his motion during
private members' hour on Monday, March 20, 2000.
It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in
the order of precedence. Accordingly, I am directing the table
officers to drop the item of business to the bottom of the order
of precedence.
Private members' hour will thus be cancelled and government
orders will begin at 11.00 a.m.
* * *
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—HEALTH CARE
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Madam
Speaker, I was delighted to hear the compliments that the member
threw at me. I have always known that she has been a big fan of
mine. Now that it is on the public record, I feel that much
better about it.
On a more serious note, the member in all fairness pretty well
covered the waterfront. I am sure when the member for Saint John
is on her feet on debate she can take her to task on some of the
points we may disagree on.
One of the points which I made earlier this morning was the lack
of negotiation with the provinces and the name calling and finger
pointing. We have had seven years of it. There is no point in
continuing along that line but I cannot see anything positive
coming from the health minister and in particular the Prime
Minister in terms of coming to grips with the question of fixing
our health care system. All they want to do is talk and argue.
1355
As I pointed out this morning, Madam Speaker, when I point to
you and lay blame, I have three fingers pointing back at myself.
But is that not the case with the health minister? He can lay
blame in all the provinces but he never takes responsibility
himself.
I would like the member to comment on that. In other words,
seven years of inactivity on this file has left us in a very
precarious position in terms of where our health care system is
going.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Madam Speaker, I could not agree
more with the Conservative health critic. I want to add to his
comments by suggesting that the Minister of Health has done a
great disservice to our ability as a country to go forward in a
co-operative, collective, community based approach to solve the
problems of our health care system and ensure we can preserve
medicare.
I believe that the government, not only the health minister but
the finance minister and the Prime Minister stood up in the House
and tried to suggest that it was not federal cutbacks at all,
that the federal government had played a very significant role in
federal funding. By denying the cuts that it had enacted on this
country, by pretending that it had suddenly increased tax points
and taken up the slack, by diffusing the issue, the government
has added to the conflict that exists at the federal-provincial
table today and now we are at a very difficult impasse.
There are three steps that have to be taken before we can get
beyond this. First of all we have to have a commitment from the
federal government to restore the cash that it cut out of the
system in 1995 to fully restore the federal cash transfer
payments for health care. That is the only way we can stabilize
the system and ensure that we have the co-operation of provincial
and territorial governments at the federal-provincial table.
Second, the minister has to then pursue the enhancement of
medicare, which involves a national home care plan and a national
drug plan as promised in the government's 1997 and I believe 1993
election red books. He has to pursue those national projects.
They are extremely necessary from the point of view of provincial
governments and they ensure we can go forward based on a public
model.
If we are truly serious about going forward, the Minister of
Health has to take a firm position with Alberta. By showing
leadership, firmness and clarity, he will win more support from
Ralph Klein and Alberta's minister of health than is the case
presently, and will provide the basis upon which to go forward.
This vagueness, this hesitation, this lack of willingness to
actually be precise but yet to invade our thoughts and our minds
with pure rhetoric and generalizations does nothing to take us
forward. That was my third point.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member opposite pat
herself on the back with respect to what she had done presumably
in 1991. I was certainly interested in that.
The one thing we know about the NDP members is that they are not
very good with numbers. I think we witnessed that again here
today with the member's speech. NDP members have an inability to
really come to grips with such a very important issue and the
kinds of things that are necessary in terms of our health care.
For members of the NDP the sky is always falling. It is too bad
that they get into those flights of rhetoric and try to always
undermine the very system that we in Canada take for granted.
I do agree with the hon. member when she talks about the Reform
Party and what it stands for. Reform members stand for a two
tier Americanized system, and that is something Canadians reject
out of hand.
I was somewhat disconcerted when I read in the Hansard of
March 2, 2000 that the hon. member for Shefford who is a
Progressive Conservative also seemed to indicate that
privatization was something that should take place in Canada.
I was astounded because I would have thought better of the
Progressive Conservatives. This after all is their motion today.
1400
I also noted that the member for Chicoutimi was quoted recently
as saying that perhaps the Conservatives and the Reformers should
get together in some sort of holy or unholy alliance. I think
his words were: “Let's find common ground”. If they are to
find common ground on that kind of issue presumably they will on
health care as well.
I would caution Progressive Conservatives not to go down that
path. They should be careful when it comes to these kinds of
things. We saw them flip on the clarity bill. Heaven help us if
they flip on something as important as health care.
I listened to the speech of the member opposite. Why would her
leader under the platform of the NDP in the last election commit
$79 billion to new spending over five years, only 10% of which or
$7 billion was committed to health care? It does not add up. NDP
members talk about the importance of health care yet their
commitment was absolutely outrageous in terms of what they were
proposing. It is unbelievable.
Let me conclude by giving the record. What Bob Rae and the NDP
and Glen Clark and the NDP in B.C. did was outrageous. My
question to the member is simple. Why does she not work with all
of us, our provincial and territorial partners and the health
minister, to try to find a solution instead of all the nonsense
they keep raising and all the rhetoric they keep stirring up, all
this sky is falling kind of nonsense? Why will she not commit
the NDP to working with us to get a good solution for the all
important health care issue in Canada?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Madam Speaker, we have been
trying to do precisely that and have been getting nowhere. I
would like the member who just spoke to remember that, if he is
listening.
I would like members opposite to know that we have tried to
co-operate by sharing the legal opinions which show that Bill 11
is in violation of the Canada Health Act. Even after hearing the
Minister of Health say that he would love us to share them with
the House, his House leader said that they did not want those
documents tabled. They did not want anything to do with them.
What do they have to hide and what are they so worried about?
The member accuses me of poor math. I can take that. He can
insult me all he wants personally, but I want to know from him
whether he disputes the facts we have presented to the House. Is
he prepared to say that the premiers of every province in the
country are not telling the truth? Is he prepared to say that
every health care organization in the country is not telling the
truth?
If that does not mean anything to the member, if it is not cuts
in health care spending, if it is not lack of leadership by the
federal government, how does he account for the present situation
of overcrowded emergency rooms, growing waiting lists for long
term care, inadequate home support and overloaded health care
workers? The list goes on and on.
If the member does not want to deal with the financial reality
it has imposed upon us and all Canadians because of his
government's policies then perhaps he can account for the
critical situation in our health care system, not the—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid the
member's time has expired.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Madam Speaker, first
and foremost I thank the hon. member from Charlotte county who
brought forward the motion. It tugs at my heart to look today at
the empty seats on both sides of the House.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member is
very well aware that we do not comment on the presence or absence
of members in the House.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Madam Speaker, this is a very serious
issue that we have to deal with.
1405
We have to deal with why so many people are lined up in our
hospitals, waiting for operations and having a difficult time. I
am so glad to see that the Minister of Industry is here today
because I say if there is stress—
Mr. Lynn Myers: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point or
order. You have already warned the member opposite. She is a
longstanding parliamentarian in the House. She should know not
to comment on the absence or presence of people in the House. By
the way, I would ask her where she was the night of the clarity—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member has a
legitimate point. We do not comment on the presence or absence
of members in the House.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Madam Speaker, when we look at the
health care system we have to wonder what has happened and why so
many ill people are on waiting lists today. When I had 4,000 men
working at our shipyard back home, they were feeding their
families and educating their children. They were happy. They
added to the economy. Now I have them coming to my office, not
just the men but their wives and their children as well. The
stress they are under is affecting their health. They cannot
work, go to college, elementary or preschool if they do not have
their health.
It has to be a number one priority for the government of the
day. I am really concerned about what is happening. When I look
back at the cuts that have taken place since 1993, Mr. Hugh
Scully, president of the Canadian Medical Association, stated
that the increase did not take into account an increase in
population, an older population, advances in technology or
advances in knowledge.
I am disappointed that the government would make the cuts it has
to health care. Back home in New Brunswick when the Liberal
Party came into power and Frank McKenna was the premier, does the
House know what he did to husbands and wives who were seniors? He
brought in a policy that said if they had to go into a nursing
home it did not matter where it was, that they had to take the
first bed within 100 miles of where they lived. We had husbands
in one home, 100 miles away from their families, and their wives
100 miles in another direction.
I had their children and relatives coming to me. They could not
even go to visit their fathers or their uncles or their aunts.
When Bernard Lord took over, the first thing he did was drop that
policy. He said that the policy was inhumane and that if they
had to go to a nursing home they would be together.
What has happened with our health care system is totally
inhumane. I cannot believe it. My hon. colleague, our health
critic, was the first person to bring before the House the
hepatitis C issue. No one here mentions that, but he never gave
up on it. Have they received their cheques? No. The only
reason we were able to get any attention whatsoever was that the
opposition side came together to fight for those people, but they
still have not received a cheque.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Only the government's lawyers have
been paid.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes, only the government's lawyers have
been paid. What has happened to human society? What has
happened to us? We are no longer there. I am really
disappointed.
I happened to get a hold of the priority resolutions that the
Liberal Party will consider at its convention today.
I am sure, Madam Speaker, that you would not agree with the No. 2
priority resolution, the legalization of marijuana. Guess where
the health care issue is on the list. It is not quite at the
bottom but it is No. 9. Homelessness is No. 29, next to last.
1410
The priorities of this present government have legalization of
marijuana as second on the list and health care as ninth. What
has happened?
Some hon. members: What are they smoking?
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I do not know. I will not say what
they are smoking. They will have to tell me what they are
smoking. There is a real problem and we have been saying that
from day one. When the government has its priorities in that
order then we are in a serious situation. We truly are.
Let us look at what has happened to the military health care
system. They did not put enough money into that either in the
budget. I have risen in the House many times to discuss the ill
effects and dangers of depleted uranium. Has the government ever
done anything for them? No. It is just like hepatitis C. No,
it has not.
When we are talking about transfer payments, the minister of
finance for the province of New Brunswick is telling us that the
amount of the transfer payments it will receive from the budget
will only look after health care for three or four days. Where
are the priorities of the government? We feel very strongly—
An hon. member: The leadership race is the priority.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I do not know.
An hon. member: Where is Joe Clark?
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Madam Speaker, as you can hear, my hon.
friends on the government side still do not have their priorities
straight. If they had their priorities straight they would be
standing and telling us that they would fight for money for
health care.
We have to establish national goals. That has to be done
because the Prime Minister needs to sit down with the premiers as
well, not just the Minister of Health. The Prime Minister needs
to sit with them, and he refused to do it. We cannot understand
why he would refuse to do it.
The government has to discuss this issue. It has to create a
longstanding credible system, not one that is here today and gone
tomorrow depending on politics. As I stated when I first rose
today, people cannot work, cannot go to school and cannot study.
It is a terrible burden on all families. It is a terrible burden
on society when this happens, but it happens. They are under
stress, the stress the likes of which I have never seen.
In my riding which has the largest city in the province all CN
men have been laid off because the rail passenger service was
taken away. The coast guard was cut from 365 down to 65. The
oldest sugar refinery in Canada was told that it would be closed
down. That amounts to stress for all families.
A little boy and a little girl from high school came into my
office just the other day and asked whether I could find their
father a job. He was going to Nova Scotia and they did not want
to move. Another person came in who was going to the United
States. They do not want to move. They want to stay home. The
only way they can do that is with good help. I wish to move the
following amendment to the supply day motion:
1415
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Perhaps the hon. member
is not aware of the fact that the same amendment has already been
moved.
[Translation]
It being 2.15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt proceedings and
put forthwith any question necessary to dispose of the business
of supply.
[English]
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): 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 (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to order
made Thursday, March 16, 2000 the recorded division stands
deferred until Tuesday, March 21, 2000 at the expiry of the time
provided for Government Orders.
[Translation]
It being 2.17 p.m., this House stands adjourned until next
Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.17 p.m.)