36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 61
CONTENTS
Thursday, March 2, 2000
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
| SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (B), 1999-2000
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Motion No. 8
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1010
| The Speaker |
1015
| MOTOR VEHICLE TRANSPORT ACT, 1987
|
| Bill C-28. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (B), 1999-2000
|
| Reference to Standing Committees
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
1020
1025
| Division on motion deferred
|
| PETITIONS
|
| Genetically Modified Organisms
|
| Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
| Age of Consent
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. Tom Wappel |
| Falun Dafa
|
| Mr. Tom Wappel |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| Chemical Pesticides
|
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1030
| Genetically Modified Organisms
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Mammography Standards
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Afghanistan
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| Katimavik
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
| Gasoline Additives
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. Réginald Bélair |
1035
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Health Care
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Motion
|
1040
1045
| Mr. John Herron |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1050
1055
| Amendment
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1100
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1105
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1110
1115
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1120
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1125
1130
| Mr. Grant Hill |
1135
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1140
| Mr. Grant Hill |
1145
1150
1155
1200
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1205
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1210
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1215
1220
1225
1230
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1235
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1240
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1245
1250
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1255
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1300
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
1305
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1310
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1315
1320
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1325
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1330
1335
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1340
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1345
1350
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| GASOLINE PRICES
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| AGRICULTURE MUSEUM
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| SANDRA SCHMIRLER
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
1400
| GOVERNMENT GRANTS
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| NATIONAL FARM SAFETY WEEK
|
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| RAILWAY INDUSTRY
|
| FEDERAL TRANSFERS FOR HEALTH
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| SANDRA SCHMIRLER
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1405
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Jerry Pickard |
| VOLUNTEERISM
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
| SANDRA SCHMIRLER
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1410
| HEALTH BUDGET
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| CFB SHILO
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| MOZAMBIQUE
|
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
| FUEL PRICES
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| THE BUDGET
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1420
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1425
| THE BUDGET
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1430
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1435
| EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1440
| EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1445
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| CANADA HEALTH ACT
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1450
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| VOLUNTARY CHALLENGE AND REGISTRY PROGRAM
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1455
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| MINISTER FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1500
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1505
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Health Care
|
| Motion
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
1510
1515
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1520
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1525
1530
1535
1540
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1545
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1550
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
1555
1600
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1605
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
1610
1615
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1620
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1625
1630
1635
1640
1645
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1650
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1655
1700
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1705
| Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1710
1715
1745
(Division 756)
| Amendment negatived
|
1755
(Division 757)
| Motion negatived
|
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (B), 1999-2000
|
| Reference to Standing Committees
|
| Motion
|
1805
(Division 758)
| Motion agreed to
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| 1911 CENSUS RECORDS
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Motion
|
1810
1815
1820
1825
| Mr. John Bryden |
1830
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1835
1840
1845
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| Mr. Jim Jones |
1850
1855
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1900
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1905
| STANLEY KNOWLES DAY
|
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| Motion
|
1910
1915
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1920
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1925
1930
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1935
| Mr. Mark Muise |
1940
1945
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1950
1955
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 61
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, March 2, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[Translation]
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (B), 1999-2000
A message from Her Excellency the Governor General transmitting
supplementary estimates (B) for the financial year ending March
31, 2000, was presented by the President of the Treasury Board
and read by the Deputy Speaker of the House.
[English]
Mr. John Williams: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. We just heard the message saying that the Governor
General was recommending some additional spending. I would like
to ask the President of the Treasury Board if such spending is
justified.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): This is not a point
of order.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 13
petitions.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
MOTION NO. 8
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Last night the
government gave notice under Motion No. 8 that it would be
embarking on an unprecedented attack on democracy in this place.
I do not wish to eat into the time of the NDP on their opposition
day, but this is an outrageous act on behalf of the government.
It is shutting down debate not only in the House but in
committees.
1010
The Speaker himself or herself, by virtue of this move, will be
brought into the fray and be asked to participate and rule on
amendments that may be brought forward in the House. This will
limit debate. This is an attack on the use of committees in
terms of their reports being brought forward and the ability to
file amendments will be severely curtailed.
It creates two classes of members in this place: special
privileges that can be afforded to members who are cabinet
ministers versus those who are not.
The tools of parliament will be circumvented by virtue of this
motion that has been brought forward and notice given by the
government House leader.
With respect to this matter, we would respectfully put forward
that the Speaker should rule on the privileges of the members of
the House who have been severely undermined by virtue of the
government House leader in his attempts to shut down all
opposition.
We know that the official opposition was given an opportunity
under the Nisga'a debate to exercise a certain amount of
privilege, and yet what we have seen is another party in the
House being severely limited in its ability to do the exact same
thing.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you consider this unprecedented
attack that has been embarked upon by the government House
leader. This is, I would suggest, severely infringing on the
ability of members of parliament to do their work in this place,
to do their work on behalf of their constituents and on behalf of
all Canadians in ways that are unprecedented. They are limited
on very important pieces of legislation that affect everyone in
the country.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to consider Motion No. 8 before
this is brought to the House for a vote. I would ask the Speaker
to rule as to whether this motion is in fact in order at all,
because this puts the Chair, you, Mr. Speaker in a position
where, as a referee, you are being asked to put on the government
team's jersey and play for that side. Mr. Speaker, I suggest
that this curtails your credibility and your ability to do your
impartial work in this place.
These motions being brought forward, five in total under Motion
No. 8 under government business today, once again severely
undermines the ability of this place to operate in a coherent,
fair and equitable fashion.
The Speaker: I am aware of this motion. I read the
order paper, as the hon. member did today. I see that not only
he but a number of other members of parliament want to intervene
on this question.
I am faced with two things. The first is that this motion is
not before the House at this point. I do not know if this is the
motion that will be presented for discussion. I do not know if
it will be added to and I do not know if it will be changed.
Until it is before the House, I would prefer to hold any kind of
decisions or even debate on it.
The second thing I am faced with is that in normal
circumstances, in our practices here in the House, when we do
have an opposition day we usually give all kinds of leeway for
the people who have presented the motion to have their day in
parliament.
With regard to this particular motion, I am aware that there are
difficulties for some members of parliament. The motion is not
before the House, so I will keep in mind what the hon. member has
said thus far. However, I would prefer to receive opinions and
advice from the House when the motion is before the House.
It is not there. Therefore I will not hear them today and we
will go on with our normal business.
1015
[Translation]
When this motion, or any other, is introduced, I shall of course
listen to all hon. members who wish to speak on it at that time.
We shall, however, wait until the motion is moved.
* * *
[English]
MOTOR VEHICLE TRANSPORT ACT, 1987
Hon. Allan Rock (for the Minister of Transport) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-28, an act to amend the Motor Vehicle
Transport Act, 1987 and to make consequential amendments to other
acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (B), 1999-2000
REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEES
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Orders 81(5) and 81(6), I move:
That Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 2000, laid upon the table on March 2, 2000, be
referred to the appropriate standing committees of the House in
accordance with the detailed allocation as follows:
As there is a lengthy list attached to the motion, if it is
agreeable to the House, I would ask that the list be printed in
Hansard as if it had been read.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Let her read it.
The Speaker: I am afraid there is not consent.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The President of the Treasury Board.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That supplementary estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 2000, laid upon the table on March 2, 2000, be
referred to the appropriate standing committees of the House in
accordance with the detailed allocation as follows:
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Votes 1b, 5b, 7b, 15b,
36b, 40b and 45b
Canadian Heritage, Votes 1b, 5b, 25b, 45b, 50b, 60b, 65b, 95b,
115b and 130b
Privy Council, Vote 30b
Finance, Votes 5b, 20b, 35b and 40b
Canada Customs and Revenue, Vote 1b
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
1020
The Speaker: Order, please.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The President of the Treasury
Board.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Continuing then, Mr. Speaker:
Foreign Affairs, Votes 1b, 10b, 15b,.21b, 30b and L40b
Health, Votes 1b, 5b, 10b, 15b and 20b
Human Resources Development, Votes 1b, 10b, 15b, 25b and 35b
Industry, Votes 1b, 5b, 20b, 25b, 40b, 45b, 75b, 80b, 90b, 95b
and 100b
Justice, Vote 1b, 5b, 10b, 20b, 25b, 35b, 40b and 45b
Solicitor General, Votes 1b, 10b, 15b, 25b, 30b, 35b, 40b and 45b
Privy Council, Vote 50b
National Defence, Votes 1b, 5b and L11b
Veterans Affairs, Votes 1b and 5b
Canadian Heritage, Vote 125b
Governor General, Vote 1b
Natural Resources, Votes 5b, 20b, 22b, and 25b
Parliament, Vote 1b
Privy Council, Votes 1b and 10b
Public Works and Government Services, Votes 1b, 5b, 6b, 25b, 26b
and 30b
Treasury Board, Votes 1b, 10b and 15b
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
1025
[English]
And the bells having rung:
The Speaker: We have had a request and therefore the vote
stands deferred until later in the day.
* * *
PETITIONS
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I would like to present two
petitions on behalf of constituents in my riding of Bruce—Grey.
One deals with genetically modified organisms. The petitioners
ask that there be a five year moratorium and that nothing happen
until we have a thorough investigation.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition deals with child pornography. The petitioners
ask that we put stringent rules in place so that if there is a
conflict between a child and an adult the child is protected
first, and that sexual activity should not commence until the age
of 18.
AGE OF CONSENT
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present the most
recent instalment of a petition which calls on parliament to
enact legislation to raise the age of consent from 14 years to 16
years for sexual activity between a young person and an adult.
The petition now contains the names of over 12,000 persons. I
present it on behalf of Ms. Diane Sowden of Coquitlam, British
Columbia, who has dedicated an enormous amount of time and energy
to get rid of sexual exploitation of our youth.
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions to present. The first one contains
signatures on some 20 pages and pertains to child poverty.
Petitioners from all across Canada call upon parliament to use
the federal budget 2000 to introduce a multi-year plan to improve
the well-being of Canada's children. I am glad to notice that
the government has listened.
FALUN DAFA
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my second petition pertains to the Falun Dafa also known
as the Falun Gong in China.
The petitioners, primarily from my area of Scarborough, Ontario,
appeal to the Parliament of Canada to continue urging the Chinese
government to release all arrested Falun Dafa practitioners in
China immediately, to lift the ban of Falun Gong practice, to
withdraw the international arrest warrant for Mr. Li Hongzhi, and
to achieve a peaceful resolution through open dialogue.
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition from
476 citizens of my riding of Lethbridge.
The petitioners are concerned about child poverty and they are
calling on the government to introduce a multi-year plan to
improve the well-being of Canada's children.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my privilege to present two petitions signed by
people from my riding of Ottawa West—Nepean as well as elsewhere
in the region. They are drawing the attention of parliament to
the fact that one in five Canadian children live in poverty.
The petitioners remind us of the House of Commons unanimous
resolution to end child poverty and call upon parliament to use
federal budget 2000 to introduce a multi-year plan to improve the
well-being of our children.
CHEMICAL PESTICIDES
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from 75 people
in my riding. A great number of these signatures were obtained
by the young son of my colleague from Vaudreuil.
The petitioners call upon parliament to enact an immediate
moratorium on the cosmetic use of chemical pesticides until the
safety of these products is proven and the long term consequences
of their utilization are known.
1030
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to present two petitions from people in the
Peterborough area concerned about the genetic engineering of food
and seeds. I will present them both together. They have similar
concerns but different recommendations.
Both petitions point out that the genetic engineering of food,
plants and animals is still relatively new but it is expanding at
an extraordinary rate. It now involves the manipulation of the
most basic building blocks of life and requires such a high level
of science and technology that it places food and seeds in the
hands of large corporations.
One of the petitions calls upon parliament to conduct a public
overhaul of Canada's food product testing system with genetically
engineered foods specifically in mind.
The other petition with the same concerns calls upon parliament
to direct the Government of Canada, alone and in conjunction with
other countries, to initiate powerful long term studies of the
health and environmental effects of the genetic engineering of
plants and animals.
MAMMOGRAPHY STANDARDS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to present another petition. It is from hundreds of
women who are concerned about standards of mammography quality
assurance in Canada.
They point out that Canada has the second highest incidence of
breast cancer in the world. While the United States has
mandatory mammography testing and standards, Canada has no
legislation for mandatory mammography quality assurance
standards. They call upon parliament to establish an independent
governing body to develop, implement and enforce uniform and
mandatory mammography quality assurance.
AFGHANISTAN
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am honoured to present
this petition signed by hundreds of residents in Lambton county
in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex. They urge the
government to protest the actions of the Taliban in Afghanistan
with women's rights now non-existent for work, education, health
care and freedom of movement.
KATIMAVIK
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions on different
issues.
Pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present to
parliament a petition signed by 28 Canadians. Many young men and
women between the ages of 17 and 21 continue to benefit from the
enormously worthwhile, uniquely Canadian youth program called
Katimavik. The participants come from all regions of Canada and
share a remarkable sense of friendship.
The Katimavik program is in need of increased funding as well as
an enhanced media profile if it is to continue its good work.
Therefore the petitioners pray and request that parliament
entrusts the government to greatly increase the current level of
support for Canada's very own homegrown Katimavik program.
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the
honour to present to parliament a petition signed by 25
Canadians.
One in five Canadian children live in poverty. On November 24,
1989 the House of Commons promised to end child poverty in Canada
by the year 2000. Therefore the petitioners call upon parliament
to use the federal budget to introduce a multi-year plan to
improve the well-being of Canadian children.
GASOLINE ADDITIVES
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the
honour to present to parliament a petition signed by 26 concerned
Canadians.
The use of the additive MMT in Canadian gasoline presents an
environmental problem. It affects every man, woman and child in
Canada. The use of MMT in gasoline has been known to cause
emission control devices to affect engine performance and cause
high levels of dangerous smog. Therefore the petitioners call
upon parliament to set by the end of this calendar year national
clean fuel standards for gasoline with zero MMT and low sulphur
content.
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—James Bay, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, residents of Timmins, Kapuskasing and Val Rita wish to
draw to the attention of the House that one in five Canadian
children live in poverty. On November 24, 1989 the House of
Commons unanimously resolved to end child poverty in Canada by
the year 2000. Since 1989 the number of poor children in Canada
has increased by 60%. Therefore the petitioners call upon
parliament to introduce a multi-year plan to improve the
well-being of Canada's children. They urge parliament to fulfil
the promise of the 1989 House of Commons resolution to end child
poverty in Canada.
1035
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have
a petition on behalf of thousands of people in the province of
Manitoba who also call on the House to work at reducing child
poverty. They recognize that in 1989 the House unanimously passed
a resolution to eliminate child poverty in Canada. They had also
hoped that this federal budget would be utilized to alleviate the
child poverty problem. I am sure they were quite dissatisfied to
see that did not happen.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 43 will be answered today.
.[Text]
Question No. 43—Mr. Gerald Keddy:
What was the cost to the federal government of the Supreme Court
of Canada R. v Marshall trial regarding treaty fishing rights?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Insofar as the Department of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development is concerned, the breakdown of
approximate costs for the Marshall proceedings is as follows:
1. Operational expenses for DIAND:
Travel expenses—$7,000
Costs of meetings, review of documents and pleadings—$20,000
Expert report on the application of the royal proclamation in
regard to the Atlantic provinces—$3,000
Subtotal—$30,000
2. Funding for Mr. Marshall's lawyer under the test case funding
program—legal fees and disbursements for court of appeal and
Supreme Court of Canada—$54,123
Total costs—$84,123
* * *
[English]
QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
Question No. 10 could be made an order for return, the return
would be tabled immediately.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.[Text]
Question No. 10—Mr. Gilles Bernier:
With respect to the Québec ministerial tour taken by the
Minister of Public Works and Government Services, the Minister of
National Revenue, the President of the Treasury Board, the
Secretary of State (Science, Research and Development) and the
Secretary of State (Amateur Sport) from September 22 to 24, 1999,
could the government advise the House of the costs of this trip
including: transportation to, from and during the ministerial
tour, accomodations, communications, meals, entertainment and
alcoholic beverages for each of the ministers, their support
staff and departmental staff?
Return tabled.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: 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
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) moved:
That this House calls upon the government to stand up for the
Canadian value of universal public health care by announcing
within one week of the passage of this motion a substantial and
sustained increase in cash transfers for health beyond the
inadequate sum announced in the budget and by taking the steps
necessary to prohibit private for-profit hospitals and to stop
the growth of private for-profit health services in Canada.
[Translation]
The Speaker: I wish to inform the House that there is an error
in the French text of the opposition motion, which may be found
on page 19 of today's order paper. A corrigendum is available
from the table.
[English]
I regret any inconvenience this may have caused hon. members.
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, thank you for reading
aloud the very important motion on health care which the NDP
opposition has placed before the House today. Every member of
the House will have an opportunity to vote on it before the day
is out.
I would like to indicate at the outset that I am very pleased to
share my time with the member for Winnipeg North Centre, the
hardworking health critic of the New Democratic Party.
The motion, on which every member of the House will have an
opportunity to indicate where they stand before the day is out,
deals with the undisputed number one priority of the Canadian
people namely, health care, and more specifically the threat to
health care that is currently a reality in this country.
This week we saw a budget introduced in which the government of
the day indicated to Canadians that their priorities do not
count. How else can we interpret a budget that makes available
one dollar in tax cuts for every two cents allocated to health
care? The government knows there is a serious health care crisis
happening across the country.
In Saskatchewan in the 1940s Tommy Douglas took the first
important step toward the introduction of a universal, publicly
funded health care system for Canadians. He issued some very
important advice. He said not to ever ever make the mistake of
thinking that the enemies of a universal health care system will
have gone away. They may have gone into the shadows, they may be
hiding out, but there will always be those who take the view that
they personally or their friends can benefit from a for profit
health care system; a health care system that takes no account of
whether people happen to live in a province where health care is
available to them on the basis of need, or where people do not
have money in their pockets to purchase the health care services
they need. There will always be people who will want to benefit
from a two tier health care system that looks a lot like that
health care system to the south of us today in the United States
of America.
1040
That was very good advice, because we have today the political
fight of our lives under way to ensure that we preserve and
strengthen through change a universal public health care system,
the single greatest achievement of Canadians. I think it is the
very thing Canadians value most about being a Canadian.
Some may think that fight is taking place between the federal
Liberal government and some Canadian premiers, notably the
premiers of Ontario and Alberta. The Canadian people know better.
Canadians know that the fight is taking place between those who
value and will work to preserve and strengthen the universal
health care system and those who place it in jeopardy. They know
that those who have put it in jeopardy include on the same side
of this battle the federal Liberal government of the day, the
Conservative governments of Ontario and Alberta and others who
would seize the opportunity that the federal Liberal government
has created to tear down that universal health care system.
The first blow to that system was given in the 1995 federal
Liberal budget but we do not have time to talk about how we got
into this mess. As members of parliament elected to represent
Canadians who value our universal health care system, today we
need to stand and vote to preserve and strengthen that system.
Every single member of the House will have the opportunity later
today to indicate which side of this battle he or she is on.
Because we do not have a lot of time before that universal
health care system slips away, in order to move quickly and
dramatically we must take some very specific concrete steps. Our
motion sets out three steps.
We must first take urgent fiscal action. That means restoring
the cash transfers for health care to a minimum of 25% of health
care spending over the next two years.
Second, the federal government must take the necessary steps to
prohibit private for profit hospitals. We have to draw that line
in the sand. The federal Liberal government knows perfectly well
that Ralph Klein and his government have been busy moving in that
direction. At this very moment they are preparing to take the
next step that would allow for the operation of private for
profit hospitals. It is the thin edge of the wedge. We have seen
what has happened with eye clinics in Alberta. Canadians have had
their eyes opened to what that means in terms of a two tier
system. We cannot allow that to happen in Alberta. We cannot
allow Mike Harris who is watching with glee to think he too can
move in that direction.
Third, the federal government must stop other health services,
such as home care from being privatized as well. In the province
of Ontario the excellent home care services that were beginning
to be put in place, beginning to be integrated into a
comprehensive home care system have been torn down. Why have
they been torn down? Because the federal Liberal government gave
Mike Harris the permission he needed to do it. It cut so much
money in unilateral cuts to health care starting in 1995 and
still has not restored those lost funds. The Harris government
said, “We are going to take this as permission to begin
delivering home care at the lowest possible cost. We are going to
shift it on to a private system”.
1045
Excellent experience, respected health care and home care
workers like the VON, the St. Elizabeth Society and the Red Cross
have literally been thrown on the human scrap heap to make way
for privatized home care. It is not a pretty picture.
Today every member of the House, including every member from the
provinces of Ontario and Alberta who knows what an ugly picture
that privatized home care is, has the opportunity to make it
clear that he or she is prepared to stand and fight for what
Canadians want, and that is a universal, publicly funded health
care system.
We know that every member of the House understands that is what
Canadians want and we know that the health minister will stand to
say “Yes, but it takes money”. Then let us talk about the
money. Yes, it takes changes. Let us talk about the changes.
But let no member of the House use the excuse of cowardice or
dithering or delaying to fail to stand in his or her place today
to support the NDP opposition motion that is before us to
strengthen and preserve through change the health care system for
which Canadians have worked so hard.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Madam Speaker, I
applaud my colleagues in the NDP for bringing forward the debate
in the House today on what clearly is Canada's number one
priority.
Having said that, I would point out to the hon. leader of the
NDP that they have really chosen to attack two provincial
governments. I would point out in particular that the
Progressive Conservative government of Mike Harris has put more
money into health care than any other provincial government in
Ontario's history, far more than that of the NDP.
Is the hon. member aware of that fact?
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Madam Speaker, the first thing I
would do is welcome a member of the Progressive Conservative
Party into the health care debate. Canadians have been waiting
all week for that to happen.
Definitely I want to point out, to help remove any imaginary
barriers to Progressive Conservative support for this resolution,
that we were very careful not to mention Mike Harris and Ralph
Klein in the resolution because we certainly did not want to give
them an excuse not to come forward and make it clear that members
of the Progressive Conservative caucus as well support a
universal public health care system.
Anybody who imagines that Mike Harris is on the side of
universal public health care simply has not been watching what
has been going on in this country and in the province of Ontario
for the last five years.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, there is no question that this debate is more
important than any other matter we are dealing with in terms of
the future of the country. Universal public health care is the
defining characteristic of Canada. It is a unifying force. It
is the way we ensure that the Canadian values of compassion and
caring, of co-operation and community are translated into action.
There is no question that over the last few years under this
government we have lost much of what gives us a sense of Canadian
identity. We have lost much of our nationhood. We have lost
many of the tools to control our own destiny and many of the
programs which Canadians cherish. This debate is really about
taking back Canada, about getting control over our own destiny
and knowing that if we lose medicare we lose the ties that bind
and we throw overboard completely the moral and social values
without which our society would become a ruthless jungle.
1050
Today we are at the crossroads. We are at the fork in the road.
We are standing at the precipice. The direction we go in the
days and weeks ahead will determine what path we take.
It is important to look at why we have medicare and what it
means to Canadians. My leader pointed to Tommy Douglas, the
founder of medicare, and said that the concept of medicare is
about our values and our sense of fairness. I can think of no
better way to get across that point than to go back to the words
of Tommy Douglas, who said:
Had I been a rich man's son the services of the finest surgeons
would have been available. As an iron moulder's boy, I almost
had my leg amputated before chance intervened and a specialist
cured me without thought of a fee. All my adult life I have
dreamed of the day when an experience like mine would be
impossible and we would have in Canada a program of complete
medical care without a price tag. And that is what we aim to
achieve—the finest health service available to everyone
regardless of ability to pay.
In this debate it is also very important to look to our
neighbours to the south, to look to the American model of health
care. That is very much at the heart of this debate, and where
we are headed unless the government is prepared to act today. Do
we want a society like the United States, where some 43 million
people are without any kind of access to medical services? Do we
want a situation where families in this wealthy country of Canada
make difficult decisions about whether to fill a prescription,
take a sick child to the doctor, or get a regular checkup?
A few years back I had the opportunity to be on a fact finding
mission in the United States. I was struck by the horror stories
of what people had to endure because they did not have a
universal public health care system. I was struck by one story
of a woman who needed a liver transplant. Her health insurance
plan did not cover this particular intervention. The family had
to come up with $150,000 in cash just to get on the donors list.
The first organ transplant did not take. The family needed
another $50,000 cash to get on the donors list again. The woman
who went through that operation died. The family was left facing
a bill of $400,000, of which only a portion was covered by their
insurance plan.
Do we want that kind of situation in Canada? Is that not where
we are headed unless we can somehow convince the government to
act and act now?
It is also important to remember what happens when governments
delay, when political paralysis sets in and when we do not act
immediately when the first signs of danger appear.
I want to go back to a speech made by Stanley Knowles in 1958 in
Gimli, Manitoba. He said: “The Liberals promised health
insurance in 1919 but had no intention of starting it until
1959”. Stanley Knowles had a good sense of humour. He went on
to say:
Apparently, it was Mr. Mackenzie King's reading of the Bible,
about the children of Israel having to wander in the wilderness
for 40 years that prompted him to require the people of Canada to
wander in the wilderness of high medical costs for 40 years
before making even a start in this field.
Today we actually have the spectacle of the present Liberals
having Canadians wander again in the wilderness and of creating
the horrific possibility of losing medicare because of inaction
and political paralysis. We are here today with this motion
because we want the government to act.
The focus of our motion is a federal budget that has been
universally condemned by health organizations from one end of the
country to the other, and by every provincial premier responsible
for delivering health services to Canadians. The daunting
challenge before us today is to somehow give expression to the
desperation, the anger and the grief of those who are forced to
cope with the inadequacies of our health system, especially as
they listened to the finance minister's message on Monday.
1055
Those who are stretched and stressed to the breaking point,
trying to care for themselves or finding a way to pay for care
for their loved ones, are the people we are speaking on behalf of
today; those who know in their hearts that with an improved,
fully funded, comprehensive health system, someone they knew,
someone they loved, could have lived a longer and better life.
The motion today is about just that.
The motion today is about stopping the slide to two tier health
care. The motion today is about stopping Ralph Klein, who at
3.45 p.m. today, eastern time, will stand in the Alberta
legislature and introduce a bill to allow profit care in Canada's
hospital system. That is the measure of this federal budget.
The budget is the green light to Premier Klein, Premier Harris
and other advocates of two tier American style health care. It
is no coincidence that Premier Klein waited until the Liberal
budget came down. He knows there is no money to back all the
Liberal talk. He says “Let us roll up our sleeves and get on
with two tier medicine”.
It is no coincidence either that the day after the budget the
Reform Party told Canadian TV viewers—and I quote from the
finance critic for the Reform Party—“Obviously we are going to
have to look beyond the money and start to entertain some private
sector solutions”.
Canadians do not want American style health care. They know
that for profit medicine is not going to answer their needs.
Premier Klein has offered no proof that private for profit health
care is any more efficient than public health care. The Minister
of Health has refused to stand and take him on, do the right
thing and stop private for profit health care before it is too
late.
We know, and all the studies show, that private health care
typically costs more, provides lower quality services and fewer
services, reduces accessibility and fairness and drives up the
public cost in other jurisdictions.
The motion before us today is about the future of medicare. It
is an opportunity for the government to change course and do the
right thing. Ever since the budget was delivered Liberals have
been saying that they know this is not enough. Did they not know
that before Monday? Did they not know there was a crisis? Why
did they not act in this budget? Why are they waiting?
We have before us an opportunity to show that medicare could be
a model for all countries in the new global economy. After all,
when we are talking about medical care we are talking about our
sense of values. Do we think human life is important? Do we
think the best health care which is available is something to
which people are entitled by virtue of belonging to a civilized
country? The answer from Canadians is a resounding yes. The
question is: Why can the Liberals not see it?
I move:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The amendment is
receivable.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
having lived for the first 35 years of my life in the United
States, I am fairly familiar with its medical system. With 90%
of my relatives living there, I am quite familiar with what is
happening in their lives in terms of the medical system.
1100
I assure the member, after taking a careful look at the
proposals from Ralph Klein—and I hope that the NDP will do the
same—that his proposals are a far cry from being what they have
in the United States. They are not that comparable. I wish the
NDP would take a little closer look at it.
We all know that the Liberal government was responsible for
causing this dilemma in the first place. There is no way that it
will restore the money that it deliberately took out of health
care since 1993. However, government spending is phenomenal in
so many areas. If the health minister needs money, the
government will have to stop some of the silly spending that is
going on, some that I know the NDP approve of.
It is nice to do little things for culture and for art, but when
we get down to the necessities of life, what would she request
the government do in terms of not spending money? What areas
would she like to see cut out in order to provide more money for
health care?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Madam Speaker, I would make
several comments in response to the question.
My first comment has to do with the American style of health
care referenced by the member. If anyone has had any indepth
involvement with people in the United States, they know just how
precarious the system is and just how many people are left to
suffer because they do not have access to health care and do not
have insurance coverage. It is not uncommon to hear about people
dying on the operating table because they did not have the money.
We were all shocked when Reformers stood in the House over the
last couple of years and said things like “I can get better
health care in Florida than I can get in socialized Canada”. We
were shocked when the Leader of the Reform Party, just a month
ago, stood up in the House and said “We should look at private
sector investment in health care”. We were shocked this week
when the finance critic stood up before Canadians and said “We
have to look at opening up health care to private sector
involvement and investment”. That is not the solution.
Let us also be clear that when it comes to this budget in terms
of spending, what we really ended up with is a Reform style
budget with all the focus on tax cuts and very little on the
priorities of Canadians, the number one priority being health
care. What we have in this budget is two cents for every dollar
in cutbacks, in tax rollbacks from the government. Is that a
response?
What the provinces want is a commitment from the government to
restore transfer payments; the money it took out in 1995. The
provinces are quite prepared, on the basis of that commitment and
that determination, to get back to a 50:50 partnership, to in
fact work to strengthen medicare, to restructure medicare and to
improve medicare. We have to do it on the basis of a financial
commitment from the federal government and the political will to
truly preserve and strengthen medicare.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I agree with some of the things the hon. member said. I
certainly agree with the last point about the Reformers and how
they want an American style two-tier medical system, which is an
absolute disgrace.
However, where I do not agree with the hon. member is that we on
the government side have made a commitment to Canadians that we
will protect the health care system in Canada because it is an
underlying value.
I wonder why the hon. member does not ask her leader, whom I see
is in the House, the hon. member for Halifax, why in 1997 she
said we should add an additional $1.5 billion. In 1998 she said
we should add another $2.8 billion. Excuse me, that is not
nearly enough and we on the government side have added a great
deal more than that.
In their party platform in 1997, the NDP members argued that
there should be $79 billion additional spent in Canada. How much
of that was earmarked for health? It was 10%. Now we hear from
the hon. member opposite all these nice words. My question to
her is simple.
Why does she not put aside this petty politic stuff, and do like
the Canadian Medical Association and others have said, and get
all the people together to work on long term solutions?
1105
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Madam Speaker, first, I will put
a question back to the member. Is two cents on the dollar a true
commitment for something as fundamental as medicare and universal
health care?
The government cut $6 billion out of transfer payments in 1995.
That has left a cumulative shortfall of $21 billion. This budget
puts back two cents of every dollar in taxes which means that if
all goes well the government might be up to a 15% share of
funding for health care.
The member knows full well that the commitment of this party is
for a 50:50 partnership. That is what we want to see.
[Translation]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
intend to share my speaking time.
I would like to begin by saying that I am delighted to have the
opportunity to participate in the debate today on a matter of
prime importance to Canadians.
[English]
What we are talking about today, Canada's health care system,
represents a tangible expression of this nation's shared values.
It is something that lies very close to the heart of our
country's sense of self.
It seems to me that Canadians cherish medicare because to us it
is about more than just doctors, hospitals and medical treatment.
It is about the way we want to live. It is about being part of
this country. Canadian medicare is about the promise that we
make to each other as Canadians, that in times of need we will
look after each other regardless of wealth or of privilege, and
so it is a subject of fundamental importance to each of us.
The principles of the Canada Health Act, the principles on which
Canadian medicare is built, are as sound today as they were
decades ago when they were enshrined in federal law. Their
soundness derives not just from the social equity, which is
obvious, but also from the economic advantage that the single
tier, universal coverage provides to Canadians and Canadian
businesses.
Time and again the economic comparative advantage of Canadian
medicare is demonstrated, and we must never lose sight of that
fact. As sound as these principles are and as strong as the
arguments are for preserving those principles, we have problems
in practice of which every Canadian is aware. It is clear that
the status quo is unacceptable. It cannot continue. There are
people who are waiting too long, waiting hours in the emergency
ward, waiting months for referral to a specialist, waiting a year
for a long term bed, waiting what seems an eternity for someone
to answer the call button in the understaffed hospital ward. The
status quo is not on.
However, as we look for answers we must be careful to
distinguish the real solutions from the false ones. We must
resist the siren call of the private parallel system which is not
the answer. Private for-profit medicine is not the intelligent or
effective response. The private parallel provision of medical
services is less effective, more expensive and, frankly, is
inconsistent with the basic principles to which this nation is
committed.
Surely the answer lies in renewing medicare, in finding new ways
to provide services of quality to give Canadians and their
families access to quality care in a timely fashion within the
principles of medicare, within the principles of the Canada
Health Act.
What is needed?
I suggest two things are needed: first, the proper level of
financing; and second, innovation and change, ideas and hard work
to bring about the kind of structural changes that are necessary
to adapt the principles to modern realities.
1110
First, in terms of financing let us set the record straight on
the contribution of the Government of Canada to our medicare
system. Public spending on medicare every year approximates $60
billion. We transfer to provinces a total of about $40 billion,
including equalization. If we subtract the equalization it is
$30 billion in transfers this coming fiscal year through cash and
tax points.
Looking historically at the utilization by provinces, just over
half of that transfer is devoted to health care, about 54%,
almost $17 billion. If we add the $3 billion that Canada spends
directly for health care services for Canadian forces and
aboriginal persons, it is over $20 billion. One-third of total
public spending on health care in the country every year comes
from the Government of Canada.
Let us be honest about the facts on financing. Let us tell the
truth about role of the Government of Canada. One-third of all
public funding on health care is contributed by the Government of
Canada. The cash portion of that contribution, the cash portion
of the transfers to the provinces has increased by fully 25% over
the last two years as a result of the very budget measures that
party is today attacking.
I said it would take two things to save and strengthen medicare.
The first is the proper level of financing. The second is hard
work with ideas and innovation to make the changes we must make
so that services are provided and are accessible to Canadians in
keeping with standards of quality.
Our objective must not be, as the NDP would seem to suggest,
simply to make the health care system more expensive by spending
more. Our objective must surely be to improve its quality and
access to services by making the changes needed. That means
long-term sustainability. It means learning from the provinces
by looking at what they have done to innovate in recent years. It
means sitting with the provinces, learning from their experiences
and developing a shared agenda of common priorities, because one
thing is certain, we will not succeed in this effort unless we
work together.
I have sat with provincial ministers and I can say that year
after year at the end of our meetings we produce a virtually
identical list of common priorities of what has to happen to
resolve the issues facing medicare. I have spoken and written
about these issues at length in the past. Today is not the day
to go into detail about them, but I will say, by way of summary,
that the provincial priorities for innovation and change,
priorities that I share, include new ways of delivering primary
health care, that is to say the first line of family health
services in communities.
Changing the way the primary health care is delivered is
fundamental to restoring accessibility to medical services in the
country. The second is broadening the availability of home and
community care to reflect the reality of what happened with the
downsizing of the hospital sector and the increased reliance on
care outside hospitals. Provinces are moving in that direction
as well. Many of them have made very significant investments in
home and community care.
The time has now come to broaden that effort and to weave home
and community care into medicare as an integral part of health
services. In reality it is needed.
The third is a focus on quality care. The Canada Health Act
does not speak of quality or standards of care. It talks about
principles.
For the first time this spring we will produce a comprehensive
report on outcuts in the health care system, measuring how it
performs and with that measurement, which will allow us to manage
better, we can work toward public discussions of quality in
health care in Canada using information technology to monitor it,
to track it and to integrate the various parts of our health care
system so we can give better service to Canadians.
The Government of Canada has a crucial role to play in all this.
It is a role of leadership. It is a role of co-ordination. It
is a role of bringing constructive ideas to the table and of
supporting the provinces in their own efforts to innovate and
resolve these difficult issues.
1115
I make no apology for the fact that some weeks ago I put some
ideas on the table. I think it is my responsibility to lead a
national discussion about where we go from here. The Government
of Canada will be there throughout to do its part. I proposed
meetings in the near future with my provincial counterparts so
that we can work toward a plan of action, implementing the
changes that we have all recognized for some time are necessary.
Let us now move from resolution to action. That is what I think
we must do on behalf of the people of Canada. If that action
requires a greater contribution from the government, if it
requires a long term financial commitment from the government, as
the Minister of Finance has said and the Prime Minister has
always said, the Government of Canada will be there to do its
part.
Let me conclude by saying that the status quo is not acceptable.
We have to change in order to preserve medicare, to save and
strengthen its principles. The choice is not between the status
quo and a private for profit system of medicare. That is not the
choice we face. The choice is between the status quo, which is
unacceptable, and a renewed medicare operating within the
principles of the Canada Health Act to do a better job. A
country that had the wit to invent it can surely find the will
and the ways to preserve it.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I would like to address the question of the
financial contribution of the federal government. The minister
and his colleagues have said time and time again over the last
two days that the cash does not matter. They have actually tried
to deflect attention by throwing in everything but the kitchen
sink in the federal contribution toward health care.
Before 1993, when the government was in opposition, the Liberals
criticized the Conservative government for changing the formula
and said very clearly that it was the cash that matters. In the
1997 budget on page 65 the government said that it was the cash
that counts in terms of program spending.
My first question is for the minister. Why does the cash not
count today? Does he not realize that it is the glue that holds
our health system together? It is the only way to stop the
privatization forces under Klein, Harris and the Reform Party.
I have a second question. The minister and his colleagues are
concerned and committed to stopping two tier Americanized private
health care. Do they not recognize that by being passive, by
aiding and abetting Alberta's privatization agenda, as they did
when they allowed the 12 point agreement on private health
services to take place, they are part of the problem? In order
to truly support and enhance medicare they have to dissociate
themselves from that position, rescind that agreement and go
forward, fully supporting the principles of the Canada Health
Act.
Hon. Allan Rock: Madam Speaker, the cash does matter.
That is why in each of the last four budgets we have increased
the cash very significantly, as I mentioned, by 25% over the last
two years. The cash does matter and it has increased.
Just the other day the Minister of Finance announced $2.5
billion which will result in a permanent increase of $500 million
a year in the cash floor. That will be $15.5 billion a year in
the cash transfer to provinces.
Let me address another point the member raised. She talked
about the passive role of the Government of Canada. We do not
take a passive role. I reacted immediately to the proposals of
Mr. Klein by saying that we would look at them very critically. I
expressed concerns when I wrote to the minister of health of
Alberta. We are awaiting the tabling of the legislation later
today. We will examine it carefully to determine whether it is
consistent with the Canada Health Act both in letter and in
spirit.
We have aggressively proposed that ministers meet quickly to
act, not just speak, on points of common priority in order to
improve medicare. I do not think that is passive. That is the
Government of Canada fulfilling the role it is intended to serve
of leadership, co-ordination and working constructively with
partners.
The last thing I will say is that I know we cannot succeed if we
rely on personal attacks.
I am not speaking now about members opposite. I am speaking of
other participants in the debate. We will not advance this issue
on the basis of personal attacks.
1120
It is not too long ago that I was in the real world working and
watching politics as a citizen. I can recall how disappointed my
neighbours and I were when we saw politicians engage in personal
attacks. It is very dismaying because it signals that they are
not focusing on the public interest. They are not at work on
what will make a difference.
I suggest to all my colleagues in this debate that we set aside
personal attacks, that we focus on what Canadians are interested
in, which is long term solutions to their medicare system, and
that we work together in a constructive fashion to get those
changes in place.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Madam Speaker, the
health minister invites us to look at what is happening in the
real world. In the real world there are growing waiting lists.
There are crowded emergency rooms. There are ambulances that
cannot get into hospitals and are being turned away. There are
people who cannot afford the soaring cost of pharmaceuticals.
In the real world the federal Liberals reduced their previous
contribution of $18.5 billion down to $12.5 billion. How could
the health minister not acknowledge that the government has not
even restored the level of cash contributions to health care
spending to what it was when the Liberals took office? How can
they, in the real world, pretend that is not so?
Hon. Allan Rock: Madam Speaker, it has increased and we
are contributing one-third of all public spending; but let me go
beyond money to the second part of the equation which is the
changes that are required.
The leader of the New Democratic Party talks about problems in
emergency rooms. If she will go there as I have done and speak
to the people who run hospitals, who run emergency rooms, and ask
them why, they will give two reasons. The first reason is that
family physicians, as hard as they work, cannot be on duty 24
hours a day. If we call them when their offices are closed there
will be a tape machine saying go to emergency. That way we get
too many people at the emergency department who ought to be
served in a different way in another place.
The second reason is that there are people on stretchers in
emergency departments waiting for admission to hospital who
should be upstairs in beds and cannot go there. The beds
upstairs are taken by people who should be moved out of hospital
into home and community care, which does not exist. If we want
to resolve the problems with emergency rooms and stop ambulances
being turned away, we will buy into the agenda of the provincial
ministers of health, which I support, to change primary care and
to add home and community care where it is needed across the
country.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity that today's motion offers to join my
colleagues to reinforce for all Canadians our government's
absolute commitment to health care and to present the facts about
the federal government's contribution to health care in Canada.
Our priority is clear and concrete. It is to work through
partnership with all orders of government and all stakeholders to
provide Canadians in every region with the health care system
they need and the health care system they rely upon.
[Translation]
Budget 2000 is based on previous budgets. It provides for the
injection of an additional $2.5 billion dollars into the Canada
transfer for health and social programs in order to help the
provinces and territories fund health care and post-secondary
education.
[English]
When we add this new $2.5 billion to the $11.5 billion CHST
investment in last year's budget specifically for health care, we
find that the cash portion of the CHST will reach $15.5 billion
in the coming year, almost 25% higher than last year. This is
the fourth time that the federal government has been able to turn
better finances into a better quality of life through greater
support for the CHST.
The budget provides an additional $1 billion in 2000-01 and $500
million in each of the following three years. The provinces and
territories will have the flexibility to draw from the $2.5
billion that is being added to the CHST as they see fit. They
can draw upon it to meet the most pressing needs in hospitals or
universities or at any time over the course of four years as they
see fit.
1125
Some have said that this additional $2.5 billion for the CHST
transfer is small potatoes. I cannot agree because $2.5 billion
is not an insignificant amount of money. It is even more
significant when added to the funding increases we made in
previous years. As I just said, because of our CHST investments
in the 1999 and 2000 budgets, in the coming year CHST cash will
be almost 25% higher than last year. This is just the CHST cash
portion.
Too many Canadians forget, because our critics often try to push
it aside, the fact that federal support for the CHST also
includes tax points. Tax points are converted into cash and paid
to the provinces. They are the same as cash. Members opposite
need to understand that. When the value of tax points is taken
into account, total CHST transfers in the coming fiscal year will
reach $31 billion, a new all time high.
The Canada health and social transfer has been fully restored to
1993-94 levels. At the same time the federal government's own
direct program spending is down $4 billion from the levels when
we first came into office. This clearly demonstrates our
commitment to health and the priority we attach to health care.
It is not an abstract issue. What is a tax point transfer? As
hon. opposition members should be aware, it simply means that the
provinces can collect a portion of the taxes that would otherwise
go to the federal government. Put differently, it allows the
provinces to collect a higher share of taxes while federal
revenues decrease by the same amount. Ultimately the individual
taxpayer still pays the same amount.
There is an excellent reason why the provinces accepted these
tax points and why they hang on to them today. I have not heard
the provinces saying that they do not want the tax points. Why
is that? It is because as the economy grows so does the value of
these points. While there have been economic ups and downs, each
of those tax points is worth much more today than when the
programs they fund were introduced. In other words, it is a form
of federal assistance that keeps on giving and keeps on growing.
When we hear calls for the federal government to hand over
billions more for health and social programs, we should remember
that this ignores the fact that provinces enjoy significant
additional revenues from tax points already in their pockets each
and every year.
[Translation]
The excellent performance of Canada's economy has significantly
improved the value of the two other main transfers to the
provinces and the territories.
[English]
Equalization payments to less prosperous provinces, for example,
are up $500 million for this year over last year's budget
projection, taking entitlements to $9.8 billion from the $9.3
billion previously projected. Territorial formula financing is
nearly $100 million higher this year than was projected, taking
entitlements to about $1.4 billion from about $1.3 billion
previously projected.
When we combine these major transfer programs, the CHST,
equalization and territorial formula financing, we see that total
transfers to the provinces and territories will reach an
estimated $39.4 billion this year. This will allow the provinces
and territories to strengthen health care, post-secondary
education and other social programs important to Canadians. The
provinces can use the equalization payments for health care,
education or social programs.
It is also interesting to look at federal transfers in terms of
the contribution to estimated provincial and territorial
revenues. I will give just a brief rundown. In 2000-01 federal
transfers will account for about 45% of Newfoundland's estimated
revenues. The corresponding figures for the other provinces and
territories are approximately as follows: 40% for P.E.I., 42%
for Nova Scotia, 37% for New Brunswick, 25% for Quebec, 20% for
Ontario, 35% of the provincial revenues for Manitoba, 22% for
Saskatchewan, 17% for Alberta, 20% for British Columbia, 81% for
the Northwest Territories, 94% for Nunavut, and 71% for Yukon.
These are significant contributions to the economies and the
provincial revenues across Canada.
1130
It is important to note that federal assistance for health care
does not begin and end with transfers. For example, almost half
of the grants from the federally sponsored Canada Foundation for
Innovation have gone to health research. It is now a $1.9
billion foundation.
Good health and effective health care are much more than an
issue of hospitals and clinics. My colleague the Minister of
Health has spoken very eloquently today and many times before on
this subject. This is why the 1999 budget announced an
additional investment of $1.4 billion in health information
systems, research, first nations and Inuit health services and
health problem prevention. The 1999 budget also provided
significant funding for a number of other important health
initiatives like the national health surveillance network, the
Canada health network and a variety of other initiatives.
The government's commitment to a strong health care system is a
key priority and the reason that increasing funding for health
was a central theme in the 1999 budget.
Governments both federal and provincial recognize the necessity
of ensuring that Canada's health care system continues to meet
the needs of its citizens into the future. The federal government
has invested significant amounts of money in the CHST. However,
money alone will not solve the long term health care problem.
In the report of the National Forum on Health to the Prime
Minister not too long ago, it was noted that by international
standards Canada's health care expenditures appear high among
industrialized countries. Only the U.S. spends a higher share of
its GDP than Canada and we know the reason. A full 30% of health
care expenditure in the United States has been on administration,
filling out forms.
Ottawa cannot do it alone. This is particularly important as
Canada's baby boomers approach their senior years. This is why
the federal and provincial health ministers have agreed to meet
in the spring of this year.
I think I can speak for all my government colleagues when I say
that our priority is to help sustain a health care system that
meets the needs of all Canadians. This is why we will continue
to apply the values of partnership and co-operation, values based
on the recognition that health care is the responsibility of all
of us. This is a responsibility I am confident will never be
abandoned by the government and my party.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the member
opposite quoted a figure that is absolutely false. He talked
about the international rankings of Canada in terms of health
care expenditure. He quoted figures from 1993 when the Liberal
government took office.
I wonder if the member would like to talk about Canada's
international ranking in terms of expenditures on medicare today
in the year 2000. I will mention them in my speech because I do
not think the member knows what Canada's ranking is today.
Internationally, where do we stand today in regard to
expenditures on health care as a per cent of GDP?
Mr. Roy Cullen: Madam Speaker, the National Forum on
Health which was convened a couple of years ago did a vast amount
of research. Experts in health care compared our expenditures in
Canada. They looked at a variety of issues. They concluded that
the per capita expenditure on health care in Canada was greater
than most other countries with the only exception being the
United States.
The parties opposite talk about the health care system in the
United States. We all know the problems with accessibility which
my colleague the Minister of Health and others have quoted. Not
only are there problems with accessibility but there are the
administrative costs in the United Sates. Because it is
privately funded, many patients in hospitals and clinics end up
filling out forms ad nauseam because the health care insurers are
not anxious to pay the claims.
Fully 30% of the cost of the health care system in the United
States is administrative costs.
1135
If the member opposite is going to quote new figures, he should
also look at the expenditures we made in health care last year
and this year. It was $11.5 billion last year and another $2.5
billion this year.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, just to help out the Liberal member on the
question raised by Reform, it is absolutely clear that this
country spends—
Mr. Greg Thompson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
How often do you have to stand in this House to be able to be
recognized? You only recognize people within three feet of your
chair. I am tired of this. This is not the first time this has
happened. You only know three members by name in this House and
those are the only ones you recognize.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): A lot of members are
interested today.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Madam Speaker, we have been up at this
end of the House at least six times. Now listen this one out.
You recognize about three people in this House. You have done it
for the last three speeches. Is it not about time—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order, please. First of all it is
the privilege—
Mr. Greg Thompson: Are you going to recognize the same
three people over and over and over again?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order, please.
Mr. Greg Thompson: The truth is we have a point here as well
and we have the right to bring it to the floor as well. That is
why we are here. That is why we are elected. If you cannot do
that, let us bring in a Speaker who can.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I ask the member to
please listen to my reply. That is enough.
Mr. Greg Thompson: This is not the first time that this
has happened. How many times do I have to stand up in this House
to be recognized? I have made my point. The next time, Madam
Speaker, please give me the sense of fairness to recognize me and
recognize someone else—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I remind the hon.
member that it is the privilege of the person who is occupying
the chair to choose whomever he or she wants to recognize. Right
now I have recognized the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Madam Speaker, I am glad to hear
that the Conservatives are interested in getting involved in this
debate. I look forward to hearing what they have to say about
universal public health care on which they have been particularly
silent, perhaps given the previous Conservative government's
record on this matter.
To help out the Liberal member in response to the Reform
question, in fact Canada's expenditure in terms of health care as
a percentage of our wealth is at about 9%. That is quite a bit
lower than the 14% or more that is spent in the United States as
a percentage of wealth. That is the best reason of all why we
want to hang on to a public universally accessible health care
system.
My question for the member is simple. We can argue all we want
about tax points and what the share is but the fact is there is a
shortfall of $4.2 billion in cash transfers. My question relates
to the purpose of our motion. Will the government restore the
cash that it took out of the system in 1995? Will the government
commit to an immediate share of 25% and a long term commitment of
a 50:50 partnership? Will the government finally live up to its
seven year old election promise for national home care? Finally,
will the government take every measure possible to stop private
for profit health care?
Mr. Roy Cullen: Madam Speaker, the member opposite still
has not got it. I thought I had made it quite clear that tax
points are the same as cash. The hon. member continues to quote
the cash. The reality is that the CHST funding has been fully
restored to 1993-94 levels.
If we look at the United States, Americans comment on our system
and we want to keep it that way. It is one of the principal
tenets of the government. It is one of the principal tenets of
our party. Canadians can be guaranteed that our government will
continue its commitment to health care in Canada.
1140
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I was
going to approach the issue of international ranking in the
middle of my speech today but just so we do not lose some of the
audience, in 1993 Canada was in second place in international
ranking. The member was accurate. The National Forum on Health
did quote accurate figures.
Since that time we have slipped to fifth place in the world. The
U.S. is still at the top. We have been passed by Germany,
Switzerland and France. The figures I am quoting are not
completely up to date in terms of this day, but we are still
dropping in terms of international comparison. For the
edification of the member across the way, internationally we are
not in second place any more.
As a physician, normally I would approach a debate on health
care with a big smile on my face. When I came to parliament it
was an opportunity for me to try to express what it is like to be
a practising physician in Canada today. I could not express how
much enjoyment that would give me. I felt I would be able to
bring some common sense to the debate.
I have been really disappointed with the response of the
government particularly on health care. I will talk about this
in relation to priorities. If I were titling my talk, the title
would be “messed up priorities”.
A significant budget was recently handed down. I want to compare
what that budget did with grants and contributions in relation to
spending on health care. My Liberal colleagues will leave
because they do not want to hear this. I can understand their
not wanting to listen to it.
I will not start from 1993; I will actually start from 1994 when
it is fair to say that my Liberal colleagues had a responsibility
for the spending in that year. In 1993 they had just been
elected. I will not comment on the previous spending. In 1993
boondoggle prone grants and contributions—when I say grants and
contributions, these are programs that can be misused—totalled
just under $14 billion. The expenditures for health from that
party totalled $7.5 billion. This is CHST cash for health; I am
taking out the post-secondary education.
As we went along, the Liberals said there were terrible problems
with the deficit, that they had to drop those important
expenditures and they dropped them. The CHST component for
health plunged from $7.5 billion down to $5.5 billion. That is
the CHST cash component for health. What happened to the
boondoggle prone grants and contributions component? It dropped
a little, from $13.75 billion down to $12.5 billion.
Those were the priorities of the election ready Liberal crew.
Boondoggle prone grants and contributions went as low as $12.5
billion. The health portion of the CHST went well down below $6
billion. Is that a messed up priority?
As the last member did, I am going at this from the financial
component only. Let us count the tax points and cash. Let us
compare 1993 with today. Let us do it per capita. What really
matters to the Canadian public is how much money we have per
person for transfers.
In 1993-94 before the cuts took place there was $636 per capita
on the cash component. In 1999, the last year we have accurate
figures for, the cash component was $483 per person in Canada.
I will use the tax points in the broad figure. When they started
there was a total of $28.991 billion in transfers. It dropped
down to as low as $25 billion, and this year it is just again
reaching the point.
1145
In the interim, what happened to the per capita expenditures?
Almost $30 billion was spent on foolish expenditures, stupid
expenditures if I could be so bold as to use a stronger word.
The grants and contributions were mishandled. The audit told us
that. In the Prime Minister's riding I call them Shawinigan
shenanigans. There was a golf course, which was not a high
priority. There were sawmill funds. A special friend of the
Prime Minister's stepped up and said “We can get you funds”. He
is being investigated because he is an unregistered lobbyist.
There were funds for a lit fountain in the Prime Minister's
riding, instead of emergency care, organ transplants and
compensation for hepatitis C victims. We have RCMP
investigations.
What did this budget do? It rewarded the minister of HRDC. It
gave her more money. There was no mention of the problem, no
retreat, no apology to the Canadian public and no commentary to
the ministers of health for the provinces saying “We think
grants and contributions are more important than health care”.
What is the role of the finance minister? He is the overseer of
the public purse. We trust him to look at the overall
expenditures of the government. We trust him to say that health
care is a high priority. We trust that, as soon as funds are
available, he will put those funds into health.
He sets the broad policy by funds available. What did he do?
In the next four years there will be $2.5 billion. What does
that mean per capita? It is $83 per capita. If we only consider
the health component, it is half of that, or $41.50 per capita
for health. That is the figure to which I would like the public
to pay attention, the per capita expenditures of the federal
government for health.
This is not apples and oranges; this is a specific comparison.
If we look at 1993 and we look at 2000, we will not be impressed.
The Prime Minister should lead by example. When he was on this
side of the House he said that if there were problems in a
department there would be no excuses. There would be no way the
minister would get out by blaming somebody else. There would be
no cover-ups. The minister would take the responsibility. His
responsibility, in my view, would be to remove incompetence from
his cabinet.
It is obvious that medicare is under stress. I will go over the
three big reasons for that. The debt the country undertook in
the last 20 or 30 years is robbing us of a lot of money which we
would normally put toward our social programs. Interest payments
on the debt amount to $35 billion or $40 billion a year. That
debt is a significant reason our health care system is under
stress.
Let us look at our debt paydown and compare it to other
countries. Australia was in trouble with its debt. It looks
like Australia will have its debt paid down in three years. If
the U.S. continues on its track, in 11 to 12 years its debt will
be paid down. Where are we in our debt repayment program? If we
continue like we are going, our debt will be paid down in 150
years. If I delivered babies I would have to be here for six
generations to see that take place. That is a significant issue
for our health care system.
There are other big problems.
We have an aging population. The baby boomers who will be coming
through the system will create a big bulge. What we are doing
today is not sustainable and the health minister has finally
recognized this. He is saying that the status quo is not good
enough. That is a tough thing for a health minister to say,
because that can raise all kinds of spectres of terrible things
happening. The status quo is not good enough.
1150
When I started my practice, organ transplantation was something
that was done experimentally. I now see people having such
things as hip replacements, extending their useful lives for 15
to 20 years. Those are very expensive things that were never
even thought of when I started my practice. MRIs and ultrasounds
were experimental. Now, although they are expensive, they are
valuable and they do extend people's lives.
This is not an academic discussion. This is not a financial
discussion. This is really and truly a discussion about
individuals. I wish we could stop talking about the system and
start thinking about the patient. If we could do that I think we
would have a much better chance of fixing the system.
The future of medicare, frankly, is in doubt. There are long
waits, inferior technology, anxiety and brain drain. Some of our
finest nurses have left the country. They were turned away from
secure jobs because the funding was not there.
I hesitate to go into the finances of this problem because it
sounds like that is where my interests lie. That is not where my
interests lie. However, I hear comments from the health minister
which are inaccurate and I want to raise them. He says that we
spend $60 billion in Canada on the public component of health
care. What he omits to say is that our total expenditure on
health care is touching on $90 billion.
I share the concerns of my NDP colleagues who fear
privatization, who fear the U.S. style of health care. That is
not the way to go. However, they should recognize and accept
that 30% of our health care dollars in Canada today are private.
There are many things which are not covered by medicare, such as
plastic surgery, cosmetic changes and, in some provinces, sex
changes. There are new technologies, such as new prostate
therapies, which are not covered. Some of them should not be
covered and maybe some of them should be, but 30% today is
private.
When my colleagues raise the spectre of two tier American style
health care I ask them only to do one thing: look at the
balance of the world, look at Europe, look at Scandinavia, look
at all of the other industrialized countries and find a country
other than the U.S. to compare us with. Compare us in terms of
private versus public expenditures on health and compare us with
Europe. There is no other industrialized country in the world
that has given the public purse the monopoly on health care.
I will return to the comparison of international expenditures.
To be accurate, this is 1997. It is not today. The latest
figures are not available to us.
Let us compare Canada in terms of its public spending, taxpayer
funded spending, on health care. We are 10th in the world and
falling. My colleagues ignore that completely. Other countries
are spending more for public health care than Canada.
Let us take France as an example. France is in third place,
spending 7.1% of its GDP on the public component.
Where is Canada in private expenditures? We are in seventh
place, at 2.8%. Fifth place overall, 9.2%; tenth place in
public, 6.4%; seventh place in private.
Like my colleagues in the NDP who fear the U.S. style of two
tier health care, I do not like it, but let us look at the
innovative changes that have been taking place in Europe. Look
at those and ask if there is something we can learn in those
jurisdictions, because I think we can.
What has been the response of the provinces to this budget in
relation to health? There has been a pretty vigorous
denunciation.
1155
Personality conflicts and politics aside, what do the Liberal
provincial governments in Canada have to say about this budget?
I can sum it up. I will sum it up by giving it a thumbs down.
Is it all just about a political battle? I do not think so. I
think that it really and truly is because the provinces are faced
with dealing with an aging population. They are faced with
dealing with a population that is rising in numbers. They are
faced with dealing with this new technology.
What has been the federal health minister's response? He says
that money is not the only thing; it is one component, but we
need physically to go at this with new proposals. Now there is a
point on which we can agree: new proposals.
What are his proposals? He says that we need to have national
pharmacare and that we need to have national home care. His
promise is that, if the provinces will come along, he will fund
50%.
Is that not eerily familiar to a promise that was made back in
the 1960s? I remember it well. The federal government said it
would fund 50% of medicare. The provinces said “That is a
pretty good deal. We will buy into that”. Then the funds
started drying up.
Why would the provinces enter into any program with a federal
government which pulled the plug on funding soon thereafter?
They are not stupid. They can remember. I am not surprised that
the provincial response has been one of great hesitation.
I am going to talk for a moment about a subject which we might
say is not exactly covered here. I am going to talk about
hepatitis C. As the previous health critic for our party, I
fought vigorously for hepatitis C compensation for all victims of
tainted blood. I do not get a chance to speak of this daily, as
I did for a long time, but I want to bring it up today.
There has not been one penny in compensation from the promise
made by the government to hepatitis C victims. Not one penny has
gone to them. It has been two years. Who is happy? The lawyers
are happy. The lawyers who have been involved in this process
are real happy because their funds are going up. The victims'
funds have not been disbursed.
The government chose the wrong mechanism. It chose a legal
argument, rather than saying that if the regulators had failed it
had a responsibility and would transfer funds to those poor souls
who were injured. It chose a legalistic mechanism. That
legalistic mechanism was wrong.
I will never forget Joey Haché, a young man who came to the
House. He stood here and said “I am going to be the Prime
Minister's conscience”. He continues to be the Prime Minister's
conscience. He rode across the country on a bicycle to raise
awareness for hepatitis C.
I cannot help but think, in the order of priorities, what do the
grants and contributions in the billions of dollars to get
elected have to do with Joey Haché and the victims of hepatitis
C? They have nothing to do with Joey Haché. I am profoundly
disappointed that the victims have not been taken care of.
The debate on health care is here whether we like it or not.
There are people who will tell us not to look at anything related
to private insurance and not to look at anything related to the
comparison of the most efficient use of resources. I simply say
that today in Canada we do not have a one tier system. Our
system is at least three tiered. We have a tier for the average
Joe, we have a tier for the athletes and the politicians and we
have a tier for those who are plugged into the system.
There are people who can leave and quickly get services outside
this country. That tier is one which I want to capture and keep
here in Canada. I want those individuals to feel that they have
the highest quality of care here in Canada, if the wait is too
long here in Canada.
The debate on medicare can turn into a slanging match. I think
it is fair to say that there is a fear in Canada of the U.S.
style of medicare. That is a fear which I share.
Let us look at Europe and let us get a Canadian made solution to
make this program sustainable. If we do not, we are going to be
criticized forever.
1200
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Before recognizing the
member for New Brunswick Southwest, I would like to let him know
at this point that I do not appreciate the words that he used
before nor his conduct, and it is not the first time. I would
hope that under other circumstances the member would come to me
and maybe we could resolve the problem if there was such a
problem. At this time, if he has a question to ask, the floor is
yours.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Madam
Speaker, I think if you check the record my words were very
conducive to the language we normally use in the House. I was
upset by the fact that this has happened time and time again.
However, I will get on with the question.
I have one simple point I want to make to the member for
Macleod. Is there some symbolism here in the sense that the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance was the person
who shared his speaking time with the Minister of Health? Does
that not send us a message?
Does the member not get a sense that there is a sort of
tug of war going on between the Minister of Health and the
Minister of Finance in terms of who really sets the agenda for
the health minister?
What I am saying, in a sense, is that a leadership race appears
to be taking place on the front benches of the government side.
It also appears that the finance minister is winning this war at
the expense of the health minister and at the expense of ordinary
Canadians.
Before I sit down, I do want to congratulate the member for his
reference to the hepatitis C victims. We should be talking about
that very issue more than what we are today, but I am glad to
hear the member mention them. They do need our help.
Mr. Grant Hill: Madam Speaker, I have had lots of time to
get to know the member who just rose in his place and recognize
that he has a great interest in the health care system as well.
It would be fair to say that there is a tug of war going on.
There is a leadership battle going on, which is pretty evident to
anybody in the country who is watching the debates.
I do not think it is inappropriate for the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Finance Minister to follow the health minister.
There is a significant financial component to this issue.
Is there in fact some kind of mini battle going on between the
finance minister and the health minister with leadership
aspirations? It is pretty evident that would be the case. Would
it allow health care to be pushed off to the side? I hope not. I
cannot imagine anybody wanting to have a political future in the
country who did not take health care seriously.
I object, however, to the use of figures that are inaccurate. I
would debate the parliamentary secretary vigorously on figures
that are outdated. I do hope that he will get updated figures
when he comes into the House. If I have one objection, it would
be just that. Updated figures would be really nice.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Madam Speaker, the
member for Macleod beseeched members of the New Democratic Party
to accept the reality that private spending is now greater as a
proportion of health care spending in the country than what the
federal government is spending; in other words, what started out
as a 50:50 partnership between the federal government and the
provincial governments has now dropped to below 14%. The member
for Macleod is absolutely right when he says that a big part of
the spending on health care has now been shifted onto the
shoulders of families who are sick. It is like a tax on the sick
and the elderly.
I hope the minister understands why the New Democratic Party
will not accept that as reality. That is as a very unhappy and
unfortunate outcome of the federal Liberal government's
withdrawal from its responsibility to adequately fund the health
care partnership on a 50:50 basis.
The member speaks about how many of these additional expenses
are paid for privately and that he accepts that.
Does the member for Macleod accept the recommendations of the
National Forum on Health which reported to the government prior
to the 1997 election and urged that pharmacare costs be contained
and that pharmacare and home care both be moved into place as
part of the integrated universal public health care system?
Clearly the government does not accept those recommendations, but
does the spokesperson for the Reform Party on this issue in
debate this morning accept it?
1205
Mr. Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, I believe in giving a direct
answer to a direct question. No, I do not. I do not accept the
fact that we should be moving toward new programs when the
program that I consider to be the most important is at risk. I
would fix medicare before I would branch off into other programs.
There is room for specific home care programs. The specific
home care programs that I think the federal government should be
looking at are to take people very quickly from the hospital,
post-operatively with some of the new operative procedures we
have, and have them cared for at home. This makes economic sense
and it makes people sense.
Once again, I did not ask the NDP to accept the 30% private. I
asked them to simply acknowledge the 30% private. We have a
complete lack of frankness and openness on this subject.
I also ask the NDP to find me another country in the world that
has a greater proportion of public-private or a lesser proportion
of public-private and then compare them with how we are doing.
Compare them in terms of waiting lines, technology and brain
drain. If we do that we will walk arm in arm as it relates to
this health care debate rather than having what I consider to be
a slanging match.
I want a frank, open and honest debate and, except the position
of the NDP that any change in private would be awful, I would
like to make sure that the debate recognizes that there is 30%
private today.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member for Macleod
speak about a slanging match. What we heard in his speech was
precisely that. He talked about stupidity, about things
mishandled and about all the kinds of terms that one would expect
better from the very people who said that they would bring a
fresh start to parliament and a new way of doing business.
Despite the member's protestations to the contrary, he and his
party are the very ones who would bring Canada to a two-tier
American style health care system. Canadians reject this. They
reject it out of hand and they reject it for all the right
reasons. He can deny and deny this but the reality is that those
Reformers opposite, those holier-than-thou's, are always on the
bandwagon of wanting to bring in two-tier American style
politics. Even when it comes to the 17% flat tax, their right
wing soulmates, the Republicans in the United States, the
evangelist rednecks, have rejected this kind of nonsense. Yet,
there they are clinging to it like they so desperately want to
do.
I say that Canadians see through that nonsense. They see
through the Reform's flat tax nonsense. They see through its
ridiculous two-tier American style nonsense. Those people who
claim they want to bring a fresh start to parliament are the very
ones who would bring it down. We on the government side will not
have any part of it.
The hon. member is a physician. I was a medical orderly and put
myself through university by proudly working as a medical
orderly.
The Canadian Medical Association—and I read this exactly two
days ago—said that we should put aside our partisan politics,
put aside the petty kind of nonsense that the hon. member
opposite was slinging around and that we should work together on
something as fundamental and as important for all Canadians as
our health care system.
My question is simple. Why does the member not come clean right
here and now and say that he and his party will put aside the
petty politics, put aside all that kind of nonsense and work
together for the appropriate long term solutions that are
necessary in order to fix the system? This is an underlying
value of Canadians and this is something that Canadians want to
see happen. Why will he not do that?
1210
Mr. Grant Hill: Madam Speaker, the member opposite, who
also cares about health care as surely as I stand here, needs to
answer to his constituents why he chose grants and contributions
over health care and why he chose to accept that. If he could
explain that to his constituents, he would satisfy me.
There is no way that he and I will agree on whether or not those
programs are reasonable. The Liberal government chose grants and
contributions over health care. He would have trouble explaining
that to me but maybe he can explain it to his constituents.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to say that we will support the motion by the New
Democratic Party because, in general terms, we think the issue
of reinstating transfers for health care to the provinces is not
a partisan issue and should be agreed on.
We are very impatient for the government to hear the appeals by
all of the opposition parties and by the premiers, who met a few
weeks ago in Hull under the capable leadership of the Premier of
Quebec.
It is very important that all members take advantage of the NDP
motion to truly take note of the extremely urgent nature of the
situation. In the 20 minutes I have at my disposal, I will show
that if transfer payments are not restored to their 1994 level,
as requested by the provincial premiers, the situation will
become critical and our fellow citizens will have good reasons
to be concerned about the federal government's lack of
sensitiveness.
I want to make sure that those who are joining us clearly
understand the meaning of this motion. At one point, we feared
that the NDP might get carried away and go for national
standards, but I am pleased to see that it is not the case. I
will summarize the motion and ask the NDP leader to pay a great
deal of attention to this.
The motion is that this House calls upon the government to stand
up for the Canadian value of universal public health care by
announcing within one week of the passage of this motion a
substantial and sustained increase in cash transfers for health.
Let us start with the beginning. Between 1994 and 2003, the
period for which data are available, we see—as is often pointed
out by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who is our
finance critic and who has been holding the fort in a remarkable
way since the Bloc arrived here—that transfer payments to the
provinces will been cut by $33 billion.
The people who are listening to us must know that those who are
telling us about co-operative federalism and who think that a
federal-provincial conference was held to discuss these issues
are wrong.
Callously, irresponsibly and without warning, the Liberals, who
have brought us one of the blackest periods of federalism this
parliament has ever known, decided unilaterally to cut
provincial transfer payments. What happens when $33 billion are
slashed? Zeros start showing up on the bottom line.
I remind the House that the provinces are responsible for
providing services directly to the public.
I should mention in passing that the Constitution makes it very
clear that it is not the federal government that provides
services to the public. What is the federal government's role?
My friend the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry knows. Its
responsibility is limited to aboriginals—not that they are
unimportant—and veterans.
1215
The government cut provincial payments by $33 billion and the
result was to threaten the delivery of services to the consumers
who need them.
This is quite a remarkable state of affairs. Federal-provincial
diplomacy has reached a point not often seen in recent years.
All provincial governments, whether New Democratic, Progressive
Conservative, or Parti Quebecois, are unanimous in their
conviction that things have to be changed and are demanding that
the federal government restore transfer payments.
As we know, Quebec has a very advanced health care system, which
is a very valuable legacy of the quiet revolution. A few days
ago, and I am sure the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry will
recall—Claude Castonguay, who was one of the fathers of the
health care system and no sovereignist, as everyone knows,
appeared before the committee studying Bill C-20. He noted the
originality of the Quebec health care system and expressed
concern at the federal government's totally obstinate refusal to
reinstate transfer payments.
I want to be very specific. When we speak of transfer payments,
I want it to be clear for those watching us at home that it can
mean health care, post-secondary education or income security.
A few weeks ago at the meeting held in Hull, the Premier of
Quebec asked for roughly $1 billion per year for health care,
just for the transfer payments. We agree, it should be annual.
On this point, I want to be perfectly clear: this is for Quebec
alone.
Between 1994 and 2003, $33 billion will have been cut. It was
initially to be $45 billion, but then a few crumbs were handed
back. Of the $33 billion annually for health, the Premier of
Quebec sought the return of $1 billion for Quebec, at the
premiers' conference.
This billion dollars was traditionally split between health and
the other transfer terms, that is education and income security.
The Quebec minister of health, Pauline Marois, a member of a
government that is giving Quebecers very good government in the
national assembly, has shown what these cuts to the transfers
mean. What does restoring $500 million in health transfer
payments mean for Quebec? The $500 million we hope to get on an
annual basis for health represent one quarter of the operating
budgets of Montreal's hospitals. This is not peanuts. It
represents half of the budget for all of the CLSCs.
CLSCs, as I explained yesterday—I will be brief, but I
apologize to those members who are hearing this for the second
time—are an innovative idea in North America. They form a front
line service available to citizens at each stage of their lives,
from birth to burial, from perinatal care to home support
services.
The $500 million represents close to half of the budget for all
of the CLSCs or the total budget for home support services. This
is where that money is important, and I will get back to this in
a few moments.
Life expectancy is longer than ever before. We no longer just
have seniors, but also older seniors. Quebec society is
different from the others in that it is ageing faster. If we
look at the various age groups, we can see that, proportionally
speaking, Quebec society has more members who are 60 or more.
Eventually, we will have more people 85 and over than other
societies.
Let me give an example that will clearly show the situation. It
will take 35 years for the proportion of Quebec's population
aged 65 or more to go from 12% to 24%.
1220
For all intents and purposes 35 years from now one-quarter
of Quebecers will have reached the 65 and over category.
It will take the rest of Canada 45 years to get to that point and
Germany 65 years. The population of France, our motherland, the
Republic, will be there in 65 years.
All this is not to show how erudite I am but to establish the
link between the importance of restoring health transfers and
the urgency of providing care to a changing clientele.
I come back to what we will do with the $500 million and the
importance of seniors in our society.
The sum of $500 million would mean that home support could be
continued. We know that Quebec has begun the shift toward
ambulatory care, the goal of which is to provide services in a
community setting. Hospitalization is avoided as much as
possible.
I am sure that all opposition party members will agree with me
that this $500 million we are demanding should be restored. I
hope Liberal members will agree as well, but I must admit that
we are not too optimistic.
This figure of $500 million is four times the annual budget of
the Hôpital Sainte-Justine, a children's hospital. It is three
times the budget of the Royal Victoria Hospital. It also
represents, and this is important, one quarter of the cost of
pharmacare.
We cannot say often enough how pressing this is. If, as
parliamentarians, we were to close our eyes and ask ourselves
what the public wanted most right now, the answer would be more
federal funding for health. That is the simple fact of the
matter.
I see some Liberal members who seem to be—
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Asleep.
Mr. Réal Ménard: My colleague says asleep. I would have said
lethargic.
What I want people to understand is that there are structural
pressures on the system.
I need to point out to hon. members that $500 million more would
be required just to keep the system afloat, without any change
in service delivery, without one single additional person
receiving one single additional service, if in the year 2000 we
were to decide that exactly the same services would be delivered
in 2001. The natural growth of the system is 4%.
When we say that the number of seniors among the population of
Quebec will keep increasing, this has a number of implications.
I have researched this and will share my findings with the hon.
members.
I see the parliamentary secretary is joining us. I trust, and I
say this in the friendliest way possible, that we will be able
to count on the hon. member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies. He is
my friend and I mean no disrespect, nor am I making any partisan
remarks. I simply hope that we can count on him, as parliamentary
secretary, to vote for this motion, since it is votable and that
he will speak up very loudly to make this government restore the
transfer payments.
If the Quebec Liberals do not speak up in this debate, we will
have no other choice but to conclude that they are spineless
creatures, doormats. But I do not wish to think such a thing,
because there is still time for them to get hold of themselves.
Pressures on the system in 1998-99 resulted in 50,000 more people
left on stretchers in emergency departments than in 1994-95. It
will be no different in 2002-03. That is why more money needs to
be put back into health.
As Pauline Marois has said, this does not prevent us from having
a debate—in fact, she has called a summit on this—and it does not
prevent us from rethinking the way we are going to deliver
services. It is not true, however, that we can afford not to
restore transfer payments for health.
We need to remember that this is our money. My colleague from
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is going to prompt me with the exact figure
for the taxes we send to Ottawa.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thirty-one billion.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Thirty-one billion dollars yearly. It is our
money, after all. This is where we realize that the money we send
to Ottawa does not serve our best interests. Because, if we kept
this $31 billion at the national assembly—and this is one aspect
of sovereignty, as we know, sovereignty being defined as the
ability to keep our taxes and to decide our own foreign policy
and to have one government—not all of it, but a very large part
of it would be established as transfer payments.
1225
On the subject of radiation oncology, it is important, because
it is related to cancer. In the case of radiation oncology—I
would ask the member for Québec not to leave; I am not done—the
need increases dramatically, particularly in the case of people
over 50.
If I were to ask in the House which of my
colleagues were baby boomers, there would be a lot of people
casting shadows. There are a lot of baby boomers, that is
people between the ages of 46 and 66. The hon. member here is
one, and our colleague could manage it if we gave him a chance.
What I am saying is that new cases of cancer increase annually
by 3%. This is important and it is not surprising; the baby boomers are
reaching an age where they will be looking for this type of
service.
Radiation oncology requires millions and even billions of
dollars in investment.
I want to say as an aside that I will be visiting all the
hospitals in Montreal during the week's break we are about to
take. I will meet some 20 organizations to make sure we are all
in tune, those of us representing Quebecers in this House, and
that we will come up with a very specific set of claims. I will
propose to my caucus a plan for a tour in April or May.
Cardiology is not a simple matter either. People's needs
increase after the age of 50. There are more bypasses among
older people.
I can mention some eloquent figures: over the past 10 years,
there has been a 3.6% annual increase in heart surgery—this is
very important, and we all know people who are concerned by
this—there has been a 260% increase in balloon angioplasty.
I take this opportunity to salute our colleague, the Bloc
Quebecois House leader, and wish him a speedy recovery. We know
that he is listening to us, and we miss him. He works very hard
with us and he follows our proceedings from a distance. He also
shares our indignation about this government, and I offer him,
on behalf of this House, our best wishes for a full recovery.
On either side of humanity, the situation is not any less
acceptable.
In other specialities, a longer life expectancy and a higher
number of seniors increase current needs and create new ones.
There is a type of medicine—and I know this very technical aspect
will be of great interest to my colleagues—that has been
developed in recent years, in connection with orthopedics.
Orthopedics concerns those who have problems with their hips,
articulations, etc. I know there are many members of this House
who have problems articulating, but this is not what I am
referring to. I am talking about those who have problems with
their legs or their hips. In a society with an increasing number
of seniors and older seniors, a medical specialty developed, for
which training is necessary.
I will say it again.
When there is a demand, as there is from the NDP—the Progressive
Conservatives will, I think, support the motion, as will the
Bloc Quebecois, and I hope the Liberals will wake up in time—when
there is a demand that transfer payments be restored to their
previous level, it is because large amounts of money are needed
to keep the health care system running.
Let us consider what Mrs. Marois said. She said that the Martin
budget offered $2.5 billion over four years—is this not
ridiculous, and I hope the parliamentary secretary is paying
attention—when, at the premiers' conference, Quebec alone said
that it needed $1 billion a year. The provinces are being
offered $2.5 billion over four years. Is this not a far cry
from what the premiers said they needed? They have three
reasons for demanding that transfer payments be restored:
obviously, they need enough money to run the system.
Pauline Marois reminded us that Quebec's share of this
$2.5 billion would cover the cost of running the system for only
three days a week.
Another reason they are demanding this money is because they
have to buy new equipment. Gone are the days when it was
possible to buy specialized medical equipment for a few thousand
dollars.
1230
Millions of dollars in investment are required. This is also
necessary because of the new types of care being developed.
There are new health-related problems that require funding.
I would like to express one wish in closing. I believe we can
work together in this House, as we have in some other areas,
shipbuilding for one. My colleague has shown us it is possible
not to be partisan, whether we are Liberals, Conservative, Bloc
Quebecois, Reform or NDP. I believe that the government is going
to find an extraordinary path of co-operation if it wishes to
restore the transfer payments.
I am calling upon it to do so, in the name of our seniors, of
those in hospital, the staff of the CLSCs, and all those who
keep the system running but are running out of steam, and not
because the Government of Quebec has not done its part. I have
here a list of the investments by the Government of Quebec in
the past few years. It has done a great deal, considering the
means available to it.
The Government of Quebec can be counted on to do its utmost, and
I am sure that the next budget by Minister Landry will focus on
health. But we will not be able to face up to the challenges to
our social and health systems if the federal government does not
put its shoulder to the wheel.
This is not a partisan issue. The Bloc Quebecois, like all
other parties here in this House, is going to work along with
the government, but I beg it to loosen its purse strings and
restore the transfer payments.
Our fellow citizens are begging for this. It is the
government's primary responsibility.
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague opposite
who I know has a great interest in health care. He sits on the
health committee and contributes in a very positive and
meaningful way most of the time. Unfortunately that is not so
today.
Today he is talking a bit about all kinds of outrageous things
in terms of what the federal government is doing. Quite frankly
he is wrong. What we are doing is putting aside the kind of
money that is necessary, certainly in the short term. More
important, and this goes exactly to the heart of where the debate
is going, we need to bring all provincial and territorial
partners to the meeting in May with the federal health minister
to start looking at a long term solution with long term
objectives and at a focus in terms of where we want to go with
our health care system. It is not always about throwing money at
the problem. It is about how do things better, differently, and
innovatively, given the technology and change in circumstances.
Will the hon. gentleman commit today to working closely with the
federal government to ensure that Madam Marois and the people of
Quebec who want to work closely will do the same in a positive
and meaningful way? I remind him that not so long ago the
Canadian Medical Association said that it was time for us to put
aside petty politics. It is time for us to get beyond the
partisanship. Health care is way too important for Canadians
wherever they live in this great and fantastic country of ours.
Will the hon. member commit today to working hard and
effectively to try to bring about the kind of long term solutions
that are necessary for Quebecers and all other Canadians? After
all, this is a Canadian issue. It goes to the very heart and
soul of what it means to be a Canadian. It is an underlying
value that we cherish, respect and want to improve on every
chance we get. I know the hon. gentleman has no choice but to
agree with everything I said.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I cannot take any more questions,
because I have to go to a committee meeting, but I will answer
this one with particular care.
First, the hon. member who just spoke—he is a friend of mine, in
spite of the fact that he sometimes gets upset at me—is the chair
of the Standing Committee on Health. He is the one person in
this House who is in the best position to convince the federal
government to restore transfer payments. I would like him to
stand in his place and give us, in the respect of his oath of
office, if that oath means anything, a single instance where the
Quebec Minister of Health did not co-operate with the Canadian
government.
1235
We know full well that the Quebec government used up all its
health resources. The problem is that the money is in Ottawa,
but the needs are in Quebec. This is the problem with the
political system in which we live.
What is the hon. member's duty? As a member from Ontario, his
duty is to put pressure on the federal government so that fiscal
justice can be achieved and transfer payments restored.
If this is done in the next budget, all the members of the
National Assembly will be grateful to the hon. member. Finance
minister Bernard Landry will solemnly rise and say “We have
$500 million extra for health, and it is coming from Ottawa.
This is no handout, it is our taxes”. In fact, it is our taxes
now but, unfortunately, we are not getting what we should be
getting out of the $30 billion.
The Parti Quebecois government at the national assembly always
co-operated when the situation warranted it. The issue is one of
finance.
Of course, as I said and as the Quebec minister of health has
said, this does not mean we cannot have a collective thinking
process on how to structure health care. Some people question
the regional management structure, while others wonder about
certain types of care. The Quebec government is ready to
participate in this debate.
I invite the hon. member to do the right thing—he should not
leave, because I am not finished—and put pressure on the federal
government to restore transfer payments for health. This is the
way to go if this government wants to have some credibility with
the provinces.
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to continue the discussion
about health with the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.
He was perhaps not here this morning, or perhaps he followed the
debate from outside the House, as we all do occasionally—
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The
member, my former union president, was elected in 1997. He is
well aware that he may not refer to the absence or presence of
members in the House.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is quite
correct, but the Chair was here earlier and in the Chair's
opinion if a member can dish it out the member also has to be
able to take it. It is not a one way street.
In the comments of the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve he very
obliquely mentioned absence or presence and since both were made
in a spirit of friendly debate I chose to ignore it. The member
for Frontenac—Mégantic is quite correct. If I am going to apply
the rules I would apply them impartially and that would have
caused me to interrupt the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for noting that
if you had enforced the standing orders, you would have had to
interrupt the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve earlier. Thank
you for this clarification.
When the debate began the Minister of Health gave an overview
of the amounts transferred to the provinces, to Quebec and the
other provinces. We will not repeat all the figures he
mentioned, which are public knowledge, but transfers are now up
to an unprecedented high of $31 billion, if cash transfers and
tax points are taken into account.
These transfers have increased by 25% in the last two years.
These are substantial increases.
This morning the Minister of Health also offered to work at
getting funding increased but said that the government would be
working on putting new ideas together for renewing the system.
I wish to point out that this is pretty much how Mr. Landry,
Quebec's minister of finance, sees things.
1240
He said “Yes, we left $860 million sitting in a bank in Toronto.
This is money transferred by the federal government. We left
it in Toronto because we have to discuss in Quebec how we are
going to use this money”.
Mrs. Marois, his colleague, said “I have no time to keep up with
what is happening in finance. I am looking after health”. Mr.
Landry said yesterday and today “This requires some thought”.
He is reiterating remarks by the Arpin commission report
released last September. He is repeating thoughts of the former
minister of health, Mr. Castonguay.
He is reiterating the comments by Mr. Dutil, the head of the
federation of general practitioners, who said it will take some
thought and an attempt to find new ways to organize health care
services rather than just having money thrown around here and
there.
When the people of the Bloc say that Ottawa has the money and
the provinces have the needs, I would like to point out that
right now over $800 million intended to meet the needs of Quebec
is sitting in Toronto.
What does the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve have to say to
that?
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I would caution our colleague from
Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies against overly simplistic reasoning,
which has a tendency to cloud the basic issues.
No one in Quebec, not its minister of finance, not the Bloc
Quebecois members, not the Minister of Health, wishes to see
another debate on the reorganization of health services, and the
hon. member is well aware of this. As for what our colleague has
said about the supposedly dormant funds, I wish to repeat what
the Quebec minister of finance has already stated.
Quebec has made a considerable effort, through careful use of
its surplus in an extremely difficult exercise of managing
public funds. It kept these monies in trust as a contingency
reserve fund, reminding us that next year's demand on the health
system will be around 13.5% higher.
The lesson that needs to be taken from this is that the
Government of Quebec has allocated a very considerable amount of
resources to operating and maintaining the Quebec health system,
and that the amounts it can fund independently are insufficient.
I am asking for some honesty from the hon. member. At the time
of the budget speech, I met a former minister of this House,
Brian Tobin, in the lobby. How is it that all provinces,
regardless of political allegiance, even if they are represented
by former federal Liberals, are demanding restoration of the
transfer payments of the federal government? Is the hon. member
not a bit rattled by seeing such a common front as is rarely
seen in federal-provincial diplomacy?
I am appealing to the good faith and good will of the hon.
member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies.
[English]
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, there is no question about it that health care is in a
crisis in this country. There are two reasons for it: one man
and one party, that man being the Prime Minister of Canada and
that party being the Liberal Party of Canada, aided and abetted
by two others, the Minister of Finance who is the real health
minister and the Minister of Health who is a secondary player in
this equation.
The budget the Liberal Party, the Government of Canada, brought
down the other day is basically an insult to the intelligence of
every living, breathing Canadian. If we take a look what the
government is putting back into health care, the numbers speak
for themselves.
Every premier in the country, regardless of political stripe,
has just simply told us that the money this government puts back
into the system over the course of the next four years will run
the system for three days. In the province that runs it the
money put back into the system would amount to about $15 million
this year. In a small province like New Brunswick with only
slightly over 700,000 people that will run the system for three
days. At $5 million a day, in three days that money is used up.
That tells us how much the government has done.
What amazes me in this debate is that it has been the
Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance who has been on
his feet this morning more than anyone else.
It is quite obvious that the finance minister is speaking on this
issue. He is the one who is setting the tone for the government.
He is the one who is calling the shots.
1245
Unfortunately it is a leadership game being played out within
the Liberal caucus. On the front benches of the Liberal Party
that debate is being carried out between the health minister and
the finance minister. That leadership race is being carried out
at the expense of every single Canadian.
When they are on their feet it is always with patronizing
platitudes. They do not talk about the real issues. They do not
talk about the crisis. They try to comfort it in a sense.
Basically what they said this morning was, “We are going to look
for some long term common goals. We are going to talk about
innovative, co-operative kinds of ideas that might lead us down
the road in the right direction”.
We are tired of that. The Liberals have been in office for
seven years. If they were serious about fixing Canada's health
care system they would have started on the day they were elected
back in 1993. But what did they do? By themselves they
systematically and intentionally took $17 billion out of the
system.
Despite it being the so-called health budget last year, at the
end of four years we are going back to the same levels of funding
for health care that we had in the early 1990s. Right now we are
10 years behind the times. Let us look at some of the
statistics.
Mr. Speaker, I should also point out that I am splitting my time
with the member for Shefford.
There are shortages of nurses, shortages of beds and shortages
of doctors. There is a shortage of pathologists. That is
important because pathology is at the root of diagnostic
medicine. We have to know what is wrong with us before we can be
treated.
This is factual, right out of the Library of Parliament. I
issued a report on this. In 1993 there were 1,200 pathologists
in this country and as I speak the number is down to 1,000. In
the meantime the Canadian population has grown. It is an aging
population. There are fewer people to diagnose what is wrong
with us.
I believe it was yesterday that the president of the United
States mentioned that over 50,000 Americans are dying because of
the wrong diagnosis. The same thing is happening in Canada.
Unfortunately we have not commissioned a study but that is just
an indication of how bad the system is. There is only one party
to blame. There is only one Prime Minister to blame. That is
today's Prime Minister.
Talk as they may, the Liberals cannot get out from underneath
the problem. They messed up. They are very reluctant to admit it
and even more reluctant to do anything about it.
Here is what the premier of Ontario had to say about our present
health minister. I am quoting Mike Harris out of the Ottawa
Sun:
I met with Mr. Rock three years ago at the first ministers
conference. He thought after three minutes of being health
minister he was smarter than every other premier, every other
minister of health, every other department of health, the OMA,
the nurses' association, said Harris. But he has no ideas, no
initiatives. He's given us nothing. Now it seems like he's
convinced the Prime Minister and Paul Martin that he has a secret
plan to miraculously deliver better health care for fewer
dollars.
If he has a plan, would he please tell us what it is? Tell us
what it is. The Liberals do not have a plan. They have no
ideas. Day to day they stumble along making it up as they go
along. That is exactly what the Canadian Medical Association has
been saying for seven years.
We have to know where we are going. We have to know where the
funding is and how much is going to be there at the end of the
day. We cannot continue on these one and two year ad hoc
programs in terms of funding and direction. That is exactly what
the Liberals have been doing.
Exactly what the Liberals have been doing is making it up as they
go along with no long term plan.
1250
Not too many weeks ago on the CBC news show The Magazine
many of us saw the program on health care in Canada and cancer
patients. The government is what we would call penny wise and
pound foolish. Think of it. We are sending cancer patients,
women with breast cancer, men with prostate cancer, people with
other forms of cancer from Ontario to Cleveland in the United
States of America for treatment. Where it becomes so bizarre it
is almost hard to believe is that the treatment in the United
States costs something in the order of $20,000 per patient. In
Canada we could do the same treatment for $3,000 a patient. Why
can we not do it? It is simply because of the draconian cutbacks
that have been systematic and ongoing for seven years.
Penny wise and pound foolish; the Liberals are living examples
of that. How they can stand on their hind legs in this place and
support that budget is beyond my belief. This is a debate that
has to happen, should happen and has to be ongoing. The Liberals
have absolutely nothing to brag about in that budget,
particularly on health care.
Getting into the finances of the budget, everything is three or
four years down the road. The hidden message is “Vote for us
and in four or five years you might get a tax break if we are
still in office”.
That is not the way to run a country. It is not the way to run
a health care system. There are 10 premiers that back me up on
that statement. Every premier including the Liberal premier of
Newfoundland says that our system is broken and is going to
disappear unless the federal government does something about it.
The Liberals are in the driver's seat. It is their
constitutional responsibility to fix health care. They set the
rules. They have to work with the provinces to make sure that we
sustain the best system in the world. That best system in the
world has been eroding for the last seven years. It is the
number one issue on the minds of every Canadian. Canadians know
our system is disappearing before their very eyes. It is time we
took the Liberals to task for it.
It starts and stops right at the feet of the Prime Minister. The
buck stops there. He has to take his duties seriously. He has
to give some direction to the finance minister and the health
minister. They had better stop playing those childish leadership
games.
In one or two weeks it will be pretty obvious to the national
press when they sort this stuff out that it is playing out
exactly as I say it and as we see it. It is one minister versus
the other to become the leader of the Liberal Party, one at the
expense of the other. At the end of the day, every one of us is
paying the cost in terms of health care.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I thank the member from the Progressive Conservative Party for
his comments.
He made reference to the many people in the province of Ontario
who have had to go to Cleveland to seek some kind of medical
care. I take it from his comments that he condemned that and he
thinks that is a bad thing. I concur with him on that. I remind
him that it was the NDP health minister who refused to allow that
company to move into Ontario.
This is a non-partisan issue, an issue that goes to the heart of
what Canadians believe the health care system should be. We have
learned many things from different experiments in different
provinces in the past.
Is the member as equally offended by the fact that in the
province of Ontario not for profit organizations like the
Victorian Order of Nurses have been driven out of the health care
service system so that private companies can contract that
service from the government? I would like him to comment on that
practice in the province of Ontario.
1255
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member's
question. The point we are all trying to make in the House today
is that the federal government is forcing the provinces to take
extraordinary measures to deliver primary care. I believe the
NDP health critic has spelled this out herself.
One of the difficulties is that the provinces deliver primary
care but the federal government basically sets the rules and
tells them how much money they are going to get to deliver the
care. No premier is going to deny any citizen the care that he
or she deserves. The federal government is forcing the provinces
into a corner to do the very thing they do not want to do. Mike
Harris and Premier Klein say they do not want to do this. The
Liberals want to pretend they invented health care. When health
care was invented in this country it was a 50:50 equation.
An hon. member: You had better come to Ontario.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I think I am touching a
sensitive nerve because one man is going absolutely ballistic. He
is going ballistic because he knows I am telling the truth. They
are the ones who have taken away the funding. He is going
ballistic.
An hon. member: You should be extricated from the House.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, please identify that
member by name.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
New Brunswick Southwest has a way of bringing out the best in
people.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on some
of the statements made by the member for New Brunswick Southwest.
He talked about Mike Harris. Mike Harris made some choices. He
said his priority was tax cuts.
Last year our government put $11.5 billion into health care and
this year we are putting in another $2.5 billion. We hear about
the investments the Ontario government has made in health care.
They are one time severances. They are one time restructuring
costs because the health care system has been gutted. The Harris
government laid off 10,000 nurses and a couple of years later
hired them back on. I guess that is why the Harris government
has to increase the budget of the health care ministry in the
province of Ontario.
I am staggered and I am sure the hon. member if he were candid
would also be staggered by the way the health care system is
used. There are people at different levels of the health care
system and they are not really at the appropriate level. If we
could move people from acute care hospital beds to a lower cost
delivery system, it would save the health care system millions of
dollars.
I would like to make one final point. Let it be clear that once
the health minister has sat down with his colleagues, we are also
prepared to come to the table with more cash.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, it has taken the Liberals
seven years to figure out that they have to work co-operatively
with the provinces. This is an indication of how poor they are in
terms of management of health care issues.
Who but a Liberal could use those figures and get away with it?
They brag about putting $11.5 billion back into health care.
This is true. But the member conveniently forgets that the
government took $17.5 billion out of the system. With the money
that is going in this year and the money that went in last year,
we are going to be back to levels that we enjoyed 10 years ago.
In the meantime, the population is aging and the population is
growing.
An hon. member: Our own program spending is down $1
billion.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I just cannot believe the
hypocrisy of the Liberals.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The other day it was ruled that hypocrisy was unparliamentary. I
would ask the hon. member to withdraw and while he is at it, he
should remember that Mike Harris is nothing more than a two tier
health care lover and so are they.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have been around
the circle on hypocrisy a number of times. I will go around the
circle once more.
If a member refers to another member as a hypocrite, that is not
parliamentary. If another member says that the minister was
hypocritical, that is not parliamentary.
1300
If a party or a member refers to another party's actions as a
party in the abstract as being hypocritical, it is not in my
opinion unparliamentary. It is the form and the context of the
use of the word. The word hypocritical has meaning. It is a
perfectly good word in the English language. We do not want
words to be used to directly attack another member. The most
innocuous of words can be unparliamentary if they are used in an
unparliamentary fashion.
We will give the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest 30
seconds to get everybody excited for the next speaker.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, when the other member
gets on his feet to talk, you immediately recognize flatulence
when you see it or smell it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is the end of
the speech of the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, first I want to
congratulate the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest for his
excellent speech. Like him, I support the motion tabled by the
NDP.
I do, however, have some reservations about the second part of
that motion, which deals with private hospitals. At this point I
cannot totally reject this idea, since I have not yet looked at
the pros and cons.
As we know, all Canadians are concerned about the current health
care situation in the country, because no one knows when he or
she will need such care, and the situation is getting
increasingly worrisome.
Our health care system is in terrible shape and it continues to
deteriorate quickly, because of this government's complicity.
Indeed, let us not forget that the problem began when the
government eliminated transfer payments for health, in 1994. In
addition to this mess, the government is ignoring the provinces'
cry for help. It is as if the government thinks it is the sole
keeper of the truth.
In this week's budget, the Minister of Finance boasted about
allocating an additional $2.5 billion to the Canada health and
social transfer, to help the provinces and territories fund
post-secondary education and health care.
That is pitiful. The minister is trying to cover a huge open
sore with a bandaid. This government has once again refused to
return the cash portion of the Canada health and social transfer
to the 1993-94 level.
A single payment of unused funds does nothing for the long term
stability so vital to our health care system. The funding under
the Canada health and social transfer must be returned to the
1993-94 level. Right now there is a shortfall of over $4
billion.
To illustrate the effect of this underfunding I will use Quebec
as an example. How will the fine gift from the federal
government be used? Of the $2.5 billion offered on a silver
platter, Quebec expects to receive one quarter of these
transfers, $600 million, which it may get in four annual parts
of $150 million.
Half of this amount will go to the health care network, while
the other half, $75 million, will go to education and income
security. I simply want to point out to the government that $75
million does not go a long way in the health care network in
Quebec or anywhere else in Canada.
This money represents, according to minister Pauline Marois,
three days' worth of activity in the network. This is
practically nothing. Quebec's health care budget is worth $13
billion and increases by $500 million annually due to population
aging. I am giving the example of Quebec here but in the field
of health care the situation is similar across the country.
The Minister of Finance is not making a real commitment to
health care. The measures announced are stop gap ones. His
$2.5 billion increase does not fix the problems his government
has caused. This is why we have to get back to the base figure.
Canada's health care system is deteriorating because of the
Chrétien government's unilateral decision to slash cash
transfers to the provinces by $17 billion.
What we want from the government is long term enrichment of the
CHST cash transfer floor. This, in my view, is the only way to
get the health care system back on track.
1305
The Progressive Conservative Party has long been demanding that
health care funding be restored to pre-cut levels, which is the
core idea behind the NDP motion today.
With our task force on poverty, and during the consultations we
held in various Canadian cities last spring and summer, I
listened to many Canadians who are living in poverty or who work
with people living in poverty. These people are suffering
terribly and will suffer even more with an outmoded health
system that is unable to respond to real needs. Once again,
those who are worst off will likely be the hardest hit.
Poverty is not going to disappear tomorrow, and those who are
already disadvantaged have greater health care needs. Their
precarious existence means that their diet is poor. They are
therefore vulnerable to all sorts of illnesses. And because
they are ill, they must take medication. Too often,
unfortunately, they cannot afford it. It is a vicious cycle:
greater needs and fewer services.
The situation is the same for the homeless, who are often coping
with mental health problems. The result of health cuts is that
they can no longer remain in institutions and end up on the
street. They are unable to look after themselves properly and
their conditions therefore worsen.
In my riding there is an organization called La maison
arc-en-ciel that helps these people re-enter society. However, as
a result of the cuts there is no longer enough money to reach
full efficiency. As a result the poor are penalised because of
this government's inaction.
As I mentioned earlier, the aging population in Quebec costs an
extra $500 million a year and the situation is the same nation
wide. The needs of this category of citizens will increase
constantly. It is therefore imperative to get more money.
The time has come for this government to help the provinces and
the territories. The government must increase health transfer
payments substantially and consistently.
The finance minister acknowledged the need to invest more money
in the health system. However, his government refuses to
increase payments to provinces.
It wants to have its say on the issue before increasing its
contributions. Once more, this government wants to centralize
and control. When will it understand that this is an
encroachment and that provinces are opposed to that. What we are
witnessing is the emergence of an unhealthy federalism.
A professor at the University of Ottawa, who returned from
Belgium yesterday, mentioned that in Brussels 10 patients who had
been on a waiting list for quite a while were called in for their
surgery. Of the 10, 9 had already died and the only survivor had
moved to another country. Is that the kind of health care this
government wants for our country? It seems we are heading very
rapidly in that direction.
Finally, I reiterate my support for the NDP motion and I urge
the government to act immediately. Our health system is sick.
Is the government going to wait until the system gets terminally
ill? It must act now; it is urgent.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
would like to ask my colleague from Shefford to comment on the
fact that about 18 months ago, the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs said that it was necessary to make Quebec starve. Of
course, while starving Quebec, he and his government also have
also starved all of the provinces, with the result that they now
form a united front.
We have seldom seen such unanimity on the part of all the
premiers on any subject. They have urgently demanded a meeting
with the Prime Minister to have transfers restored to what they
were before the government cuts of 1994.
I would like my colleague from Shefford to tell us if she senses
a relationship between the desire to starve Quebec and the fact
that the drastic if not savage cuts to health are making all
Canadians suffer.
1310
Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Madam Speaker, yes, I believe that by
his statements, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is
carrying on the strategy of provocation used during the last 30
years by the government to get its way. It uses provocation
tactics against Quebec, it tries to find solutions, but in the
end it does not find any, which is detrimental not only to Quebec
but to the whole of Canada.
I believe the government should listen to what the needs are. I
do not know if it is whether it has difficulty understanding. If
businesses did not listen to what the needs of their customers
were, they would go bankrupt.
We have a government that is not listening to what the people's
needs are and that is continuing to manage the country's affairs
as it pleases, that is by invading provincial jurisdictions.
Ultimately, this leads nowhere.
I hope that after listening to the comments made by all the
members the government will finally understand that the situation
is critical and that it must take action immediately.
[English]
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of my
colleague. There was one area I was not clear on and it may have
been something I missed in the translation.
The member indicated that she would be prepared to support the
motion but that she had some concerns with the last portion of
our motion. As I read that, it is that the government take the
necessary steps to prohibit private for profit hospitals and stop
the growth of private for profit health care in Canada. I just
wonder if she as a member of the Conservative Party could
elaborate on what aspects of that she has some trouble with me.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Madam Speaker, yes, it is true there is
a part of the motion I do not immediately accept. I do not think
we can simply suggest that privatization be rejected without
further study.
Often decisions are made without thorough consideration. We say
we dismiss this issue because it cannot be done. However, have
some studies been done? Have we thoroughly considered the issue?
This is often a problem with governments; they implement
programs, but never examine their impact. Finally, at the end of
the program, they come to the conclusion that it did not work.
We have no system to assess its impact during or even before its
implementation.
Consequently, I am not willing to dismiss a private system out
of hand, because it has not been thoroughly examined. We must
examine the issue and, if we realize this is not really the
solution, then we can dismiss it. But if we do not thoroughly
know the issue, we can say we should simply examine it.
[English]
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Madam Speaker,
it is an honour and pleasure for me to rise today in the House of
Commons to speak to the motion introduced in the House by the New
Democratic Party of Canada.
The proud legacy of this party is that of Tommy Douglas who
brought into the country in Saskatchewan the first medicare
system amid great opposition. It has been mentioned today by the
member for Winnipeg North that he spoke about it at the time and
said that we should never ever forget that once this system was
introduced it would continue to be under attack. There will
always be those waiting in the shadows who see money to be made
in the health care system regardless of what it means for the
health of Canadians.
I will be sharing my time with another member of the New
Democratic Party. I know the Minister of Health would love to
take 10 more minutes to try to clarify some of the muddy waters
we have heard about already today, but I will be sharing my time
with a member of my party who will be speaking to protect our
health care or medicare system.
When the history of this place is written, I think historians
will look back on budget 2000 introduced by the government and
its effect on health care and say that it was a watershed budget,
that it was a turning point in the history of the Liberal Party
and Liberal ideology.
1315
It was not long ago that the Liberal Party once saw a role for
government in the lives of Canadians. That should not surprise
to anyone because that is the attitude of Canadians; that is the
ideology and culture of this country. That is why we had such
proud institutions, such as the CBC and passenger rail services,
as a notion that there should be a good standard of living for
all Canadians and, more than anything, there should be protection
of health care.
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member
for Winnipeg—Transcona.
The ideology in the country was that no matter where we lived,
whether it was in the east, the centre, the north or the west, we
would be entitled to quality health care and equal health care.
This is what made Canadians proud.
Over the last five to seven years the government has chipped
away at those values. It has chipped away at the cultural
institutions. It has chipped away at the notion of regional
economic expansion. It has chipped away at some of the ideas of
the founders of the Liberal Party, people like Monique Bégin and
social scientists like Tom Kent. People who once had a role to
play in that party do not anymore. Regrettably, the Canadian
public tolerated that because we were told there was deficit. We
were told that we had to sacrifice many things on the altar of
deficit reduction.
Then the Minister of Finance began talking about how many
surpluses he had and that budget after budget after budget
resulted in a surplus. That is why I say this budget introduced
this year marks a profound turning point in this country. The
paltry sum of money allocated to protect health care in the
country in a time of surplus means that the government has
decided to support or allow the beginnings of a two-tier health
care system. I predict it is something that Canadians will not
allow to happen.
The federal funding to the provinces was once a real
partnership. Today the Minister of Health and his parliamentary
secretary talked about convening a meeting of ministers to work
in partnership. The federal government has lost much of its
moral authority to influence the way those policies will develop
because of the reduction in spending. A partnership where the
federal government pays 15 cents of every dollar to health care
is, what we would call in the business community, a minority
shareholder position. It is not in a position to influence the
real direction of where health care will go. If it is not in a
position to do that then it has abandoned the leadership role
that is so necessary and that should be exercised by the federal
government.
The transfer payments to the provinces have been cut and cut and
cut. In 1993 the cash transfers to the provinces were $18.8
billion. The explanation for that was that the government had to
fight a deficit. However, it has not been restored to the
previous spending levels nor will it be restored. There is also
no projection for its restoration to the same level of funding,
at least not as far as the government's figures show and not as
far as the government can foresee.
What we know is that the federal government has relinquished its
leadership role and cut its funding to the provinces by about $4
billion or $5 billion from where it was in 1993. How have
Canadians reacted? From every part of the country and from every
political leader in the country there has been condemnation. The
British Columbia minister of finance said “I must also say that
the federal finance minister falls far short of the need for
funding quality health care and education which British
Columbians have told me is their top spending priority”.
1320
The president of the Manitoba Nurses Union said:
This budget didn't go nearly far enough. Ninety million dollars
is enough to keep the doors open (on health care) and not much
more.
It's not really sufficient. It is a one-time grant and there is
no commitment for long-term federal funding, and without that I
don't know how we will protect medicare.
These are not partisan statements. This is not a member of the
House attacking the government for political reasons. This is
someone who works in the health care system.
The minister said that he will meet with the partners in health
care. Let us see what they are saying, and they are from every
political stripe. From my own province of Nova Scotia, Premier
John Hamm said:
In my province, where we face a deficit of close to $500
million, the premier said that we needed a specific amount for
health care and we did not get it.
The NDP finance critic in the opposition party in Nova Scotia
called the budget a betrayal of Nova Scotians and suggested that
it may work in provinces where there is a robust economy but not
in the have-not provinces in the country. That is where the
federal leadership is falling down. That is the betrayal to the
country.
The Liberal leader, a former parliamentary secretary to the
minister of health, Russell MacLellan, said that the $2.5 billion
transfer increase was woefully inadequate and would accentuate
real problems in health care in Nova Scotia.
Premier Tobin, another Liberal, the only sitting Liberal premier
left in the country, said that this was woefully inadequate.
The list goes on and on. It is not just the New Democratic
Party saying that there is a problem here. This transcends
political partisanship. I will be watching very carefully to see
how the Liberal members of parliament, the ones from the
provinces where their own provincial leaders have condemned this
budget in terms of health care, vote. I am sure their
constituents will also be be watching.
As the leader of the New Democratic Party said today, the motion
has been particularly crafted so that every member of the House
who believes in a publicly funded medicare system can show their
support to Canadians for that. It calls for three things, things
that the Minister of Health has said here today and has
recognized need to be incorporated in health care funding. It
calls for more funding. I think the Minister of Health said in
his own statement that we needed more funding. He said that it
needed some ideas, and we have not diminished that. There is
nothing in this resolution that says we are not open to new
ideas.
What it says is that there will be “a substantial and sustained
increase in cash transfers” to the provinces, which the Minister
of Health has said he is prepared to look at. It further states
“by taking the steps necessary to prohibit private for-profit
hospitals and to stop the growth of private for-profit health
services in Canada”. The Minister of Health has said that he is
not favour of that either.
Given the fact that this resolution does not in any way
contradict what the Minister of Health says he wants to do, I
will be hoping and watching to see him stand in favour of the
motion when it comes to the vote.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Madam Speaker,
the hon. member talked about how the other provincial governments
and leaders dealt with the budget just tabled in the House and
with the inadequate amount of dollars that flowed from that
budget to the health care system. Could the hon. member just
expand on that a little bit more?
I am now told that the Minister of Health and the Minister of
Finance have said in some news reports that, eureka, there may
well be some more dollars available that they will put into
health care if and when the health ministers sit down with them
and talk about the system and how they will put those into place.
Does the hon. member have an awful lot of confidence in the
co-operative federalism that has been demonstrated by the
government previously and on other issues more so than health
care? Does he believe that the Minister of Finance and the
Minister of Health will negotiate in good faith? If they were,
then why were those dollars not mentioned prior to the budget
being formulated? All of a sudden they are backtracking a bit
and saying “Of course, there is more money there if in fact we
can negotiate the way that should be distributed”. Would the
hon. member please like to expand on that topic just a bit?
1325
Mr. Peter Mancini: Madam Speaker, I do think there will
be more money forthcoming to health care but not because it is in
the works now. I think it is because of the reaction that the
Canadian public had to this budget. I might also say that it is
because of the opposition, led by this party in the House of
Commons, that there is a wave beginning. The government has
recognized that and is now saying “Yes, there will be more money
for health care”.
However, for the provinces to do any kind of long term planning,
the extra money should have been announced on the day of the
budget. I honestly do not understand why a sitting government
would not say that it was going to do that and that x
amount of dollars would be allotted for that. If it is there,
surely Canadians should know about it.
On the question of co-operative federalism, I hope that the
health ministers, the premiers and the federal ministers can put
aside differences to ensure that this most important program for
Canadians—I think the most important program in the country—is
protected and preserved. I hope those things will take place.
I do not know why it has taken so long to pull everyone
together. I have only been in the House for two and a half years
but in that time I think we all saw that the health care system
was crumbling and that we could have done this a little more
expeditiously.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I am very glad to have the opportunity to debate this
motion today. I am glad to see the Minister of Health here. I
think that is what ministers should do on opposition days; hear
out the opposition. I hope that I will have his ear for just a
few minutes and be able to pass on to him some observations of my
own and those of my party with respect to what has happened to
medicare over the last several years.
I begin by saying that I have been an observer of what is
happening to Canada's health care system for a long time. I was
the NDP health critic from 1980 to 1984 in the lead-up to the
Canada Health Act. I remember very well being in the House
speaking at the close of the debate on the Canada Health Act. I
want to commend the health minister of that day, Monique Bégin,
for bringing in the Canada Health Act, albeit after considerable
encouragement on the part of the opposition, which she herself
acknowledges in a book about her experiences at that time.
At the end of the debate at that time, I said—and I regret to
say that it has come true—that no amount of standards, no amount
of principles, no amount of ideals with respect to medicare would
save medicare in the absence of adequate funding. In the end, we
can have a Canada Health Act as strong as we like in terms of
enforcement and in terms of its ideals, but if the publicly
funded health care system in this country, that we call medicare,
is slowly but surely starved to death, these principles will mean
nothing.
If we cannot get the kind of health care that we want and need
when we go to the publicly funded health care system this creates
two problems. First, there is an immediate problem. We cannot
get the health care that we need. We cannot get that diagnostic
test, we cannot get the bed that we need or whatever the case may
be. We cannot get the treatment that we need. But it creates a
longer term problem for the system beyond the problem that it
creates for an individual and that is, it builds pressure on the
body politic to create an alternative to that system.
More and more Canadians, both those with money and those without
very much money, begin to wonder about whether or not it would be
in their interest to have another system that they could go to
when the public system fails them as a result of it being slowly
starved to death.
That is taken advantage of by two groups of people, the
insurance companies and the multinational health care
corporations that never liked medicare in the first place.
The more that medicare is starved to death, the more an
opportunity is created for them to make an argument for their
kind of health care system.
1330
It creates an opportunity for politicians of various right wing
ideologies, like the Harris' and the Kleins, who see in the slow
starvation, at least that starvation which is attributable to the
federal government, a political excuse for doing what they want
to anyway. It sets them up nicely as politicians who would like
to create a context in which they could bring in more private
funding of health care.
I say to the Minister of Health that this is a genuinely
dangerous situation. We had a crisis in the late 1970s and early
1980s with respect to extra billing and user fees, and that was
solved through the Canada Health Act. But we have a crisis of an
entirely different order, a kind of metacrisis now.
I say to the Minister of Health, in all sincerity, that there is
a real danger that medicare will be fatally wounded on the watch
of the Liberal government, on the watch of the minister. I do
not think that is something the minister wants to have on his
record. I do not think it is something that he wants. I caution
him not to let it happen by stealth, not to find out that some
day he is in a position where this is going to happen whether he
wants it to happen or not.
I think, unfortunately, what happened in the context of the
federal budget is that the day which I do not think the Minister
of Health wants, which certainly we in the NDP do not want, has
been advanced. That day has been brought closer. The
possibility of medicare being fatally wounded on the Liberal
watch has been brought closer and made more likely. We will see
today. I think it is today that Premier Klein will be bringing
in legislation.
The minister may argue, and certainly Mr. Klein will argue, that
this is totally in keeping with the Canada Health Act. We can
get lawyers on either side of this one, but I think most
Canadians would say that what Mr. Klein has in mind and what Mr.
Harris is musing about is against the spirit of the Canada Health
Act.
Even if it can be argued by the minister, by Mr. Klein and by
Mr. Harris that this is somehow not technically a violation of
the Canada Health Act because these hospitals will still be paid
by the publicly insured system, it will bring these private
hospitals into being. Once they are there, do we not think that
they will begin to have a political presence, that they will have
a presence in medical and health care communities? It will be
the thin edge of wedge. It will be the wide edge of the wedge.
This will be very, very significant.
I say to the minister that I think he needs to revisit the 12
point plan which a former minister signed, she says under duress,
with the province of Alberta. He needs to come down hard, but he
needs to come down hard with money, and not for the sake of
Alberta. As far as I am concerned, Alberta is a big culprit in
this. Alberta could solve all of its medical problems tomorrow
by simply having a sales tax like every other province.
When it comes to Alberta, it is not a question of limited
resources, it is a question of ideology. But I will tell the
minister that in a lot of other provinces it is not a question of
limited will or ideology, it is a question of limited resources.
The government cannot say that it cannot afford to carry 50%,
while at the same time, by implication, say that it expects the
provinces to carry 75% of the load. It just will not happen. It
cannot be done.
Even provinces whose governments are committed, whose premiers
are committed with every cell of their bodies to medicare, will
not be able to do it. At some point public demand to transcend
or avoid waiting lists, et cetera, will be too much and other
options will have to be sought.
This is what I say to the minister. We are in a very, very
dangerous situation.
1335
The original insight behind medicare was that medical decisions
would be made on medical grounds; not on market grounds, not on
the grounds of profitability or seeking profit, but to take
medicine out of the marketplace and make medical decisions for
medical reasons.
What has happened over the last 20 years, slowly but surely, is
that medical decisions are not made for medical reasons any more.
They are not made according to the market, but they are made for
fiscal reasons. That too goes against the spirit of medicare,
because the spirit of medicare was to make medical decisions
medical, not market and not fiscal.
We now have a situation where too many medical and health care
decisions are being made for fiscal reasons. If we want to
restore the spirit of medicare, then we have to have enough
resources in the system so that doctors and other health
caregivers can begin to make those decisions; not on the basis of
what the finance ministers of the various provinces say or what
the federal Minister of Finance says, but on the basis of what
they know their patients need.
Going to a private for profit health care system will not do
that either. There are health management organizations, HMOs, or
whatever they are called in the United States, in which all kinds
of decisions on procedures and treatments are restricted or not
available because of the profit strategies of that particular
health care corporation, so it is a delusion to think that is a
solution. What we need is what we had, a health care system
where people got what they needed because they needed it and
there was adequate funding.
There is not adequate funding at this time. The $2.5 billion
extra that we got the other day in the budget is not enough, and
I think the health minister knows it is not enough. But it is
not enough to say that it is coming. It has to come soon and it
has to come in the form of re-establishing a real federal
partnership with the provinces. Otherwise the minister can have
all of the meetings he likes with his provincial counterparts,
but if he does not have the moral high ground, if he is not
willing to reclaim the moral high ground—and unfortunately money
has a lot to do with that—then it will just be an endless series
of seminars where our medicare system keeps getting worse and
worse.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I listened to the comments of
the member opposite with great interest.
As I said earlier, our Minister of Finance has indicated that he
is prepared to come to the table once the Minister of Health has
met with his provincial colleagues and has worked up some kind of
plan to make sure that the health care system will operate as
efficiently as possible.
I do not stand in the House and claim to be an expert on health
care, but we would all agree that health care delivery is a
provincial responsibility. If there are problems in the deliver
of the health care system, that is a provincial issue.
The question is: Is there a funding issue or a finance issue?
That is what is under debate in the House today.
I had the opportunity in the late 1970s to work on health care
cost containment. I am speaking now as a citizen of Canada. It
was amazing. We looked at health care from the acute care bed,
which is the most expensive part of the health care system, right
through to intermediate care, long term care, home care and home
makers, down to where someone needed a helping hand to make
lunch. We looked at the low cost solutions and the very high
cost solutions. That was 20 years ago and we still do not have
it right.
We have patients in acute care beds who should be in home care.
We have elderly patients in acute care beds who should be in long
term care or extended care. We all know that. I know it is not
an easy problem to solve. I accept that. However, we have to
deal with this and other issues, like prevention, promotion and
lifestyle issues, on which we have made some progress.
The member opposite said 50%. My question to him is, 50% of
what? Where are health care costs going?
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Madam Speaker, the member raises a lot
of things that people have talked about in the House for a long
time. I would agree with them that we are facing a demographic
situation as well as a number of other things which have put
pressure on the health care system. Technological innovation,
demographic circumstances and all kinds of things have converged
to put pressure on the health care system. Nobody is denying
that.
1340
However, if we are going to work together, federally and
provincially, then there has to be a commitment to equal burden
sharing while we solve the problem. That is all I am saying.
This is everybody's problem.
The federal government has used the federal spending power and
the Canada Health Act to lay down certain conditions and to be
involved in medicare, and we do not quarrel with that. If there
are problems to be solved, as the member has identified, and I
think identified well, then people should do that in a collegial,
partnership, sharing kind of way; not by saying “There is a
problem and until we solve it you guys carry 75% of the problem
and when we get it solved maybe we will go back to 50:50”. I do
not think that is a viable approach.
The member said that we still do not have right some of the
things that were wrong 20 years ago. I would agree that there
are many people in acute care beds who should be in long term
care. That is a question of money. It is a question of creating
those long term care facilities and beds. Or, it is a question
of home care. It is probably both.
What I am concerned about when I listen to the Minister of
Health and the Minister of Finance is that some months from now
they will say to the provincial ministers of health “We want to
have a national home care program. This is where we want to put
our money”. The provincial governments will say “Wait a
minute. Why should we trust you to cost share this thing with us
when the last thing you cost shared with us you pulled out of
unilaterally?” Then we could have—and this is the scenario I
am afraid of—the Minister of Health saying “We wanted to have a
national home care program, but the provinces would not let us.
We offered to work with them, but no, they did not want to do
it”, the same way it was done with the national day care
program, which was pinned on the provinces. They said “We
wanted to have a national day care program, but we talked to the
provinces and they were not interested”. I can see the same
kind of scenario developing with another national program,
whereby we would get more politics and not the re-infusion of
money into the system which is really needed.
As far as other matters, there are many people who go to the
hospital and before they know it they are out, whereas 20 or 25
years ago they would have stayed two, three, four or five days.
Let us not pretend that nothing has happened. There are many
people who do not spend anywhere near the amount of time in
hospital they used to. We have done all of that and we still
have a problem.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for St. Paul's.
The issue before the House is generally about health care and
the condition of health care and how we address the challenges of
health care today.
This morning I had the opportunity to listen to the debate and I
was most impressed with the presentation of the health minister
with regard to resisting getting into the trenches with others in
pointing fingers at who is at fault. It was a responsible
approach to saying that we have challenges, we have the
opportunity and we are committed to addressing those challenges
and to working in co-operation with all of the stakeholders in
the health system of Canada. I congratulate him for taking the
high road.
The federal government's principal responsibilities come under
the Canada Health Act. I think most members will know that the
Canada Health Act contains five principles. Those principles
are: universality, accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness
and publicly funded. If we think about the Canada Health Act, it
really is expressing a value statement for Canadians.
I was told at one time that about 75% or more of the health care
costs in the lifetime of a human being will be incurred in the
last year of his or her life. When we consider the enormity of
the costs at the end of our years, we wonder whether there would
be an automatic pressure to save money by simply reducing our
standards of health care, reducing our care for the aged and
asking why would we spend the money to prolong death rather than
spending it elsewhere to extend life. It is a significant
ethical issue.
Canadians have made their choice with regard to the ethics of
our health care system. We have people who are living longer and
we continue to invest in our health care system to make sure that
Canadians not only live longer, but they live a high quality of
life throughout all of their years.
Those are some of the underlying principles. It is not just
about dollars. It is about the values that Canadians hold.
1345
The National Forum on Health did two years worth of work. It
had the best experts in Canada in health care delivery. It went
across the country and consulted very broadly. It came to the
conclusion when it reported to the health minister and to
parliament that there were enough funds in the system. It said
there many areas within the health care system had dollars which
could have been spent much more wisely and productively in terms
of getting healthier outcomes for Canadians.
I believe that was the first instance in which it was time for
the federal government and the provinces to sit down to start to
discuss how to plan for the health care system in the future,
knowing that we have an aging society and that our lifestyles,
stress and activity levels make us more at risk for having health
needs. The world changes and people change but our values do
not. Our values have remained firm and consistent. We want to
provide quality care in terms of medically necessary services for
Canadians.
A few issues were raised by the National Forum on Health on
which I believe the health minister has already had consultations
with the provinces. On the issue of privately funded services, I
understand that over 70% of health care expenditures in Canada
are financed from the public purse with the remaining coming from
private sources.
Some would say the public expenditures are too high and should
be restricted to a basic array of services, basic bare bones,
medically necessary life threatening type activities, emergencies
or obstetrics type stuff. Others say we need to maintain a high
level of public funding for health and, if anything, the funding
should be expanded to cover services that go beyond physicians
and hospitals, which has been traditionally federal
responsibility or federal obligations with regard to funding.
The National Forum on Health also raised the issue about whether
there was enough money. From an international perspective it
found that the Canada health care system did not appear to be
underfunded and was one of the most expensive systems in the
world. These are issues which have to be agreed upon with the
provinces.
There was also the combination of health reform and fiscal
restraint to give rise to rationing and issues around the fringes
of the principles of the Canada Health Act. It is important for
Canadians and legislators to look at these issues and at how
Canada is evolving and responding to the health care needs of
Canadians.
Canadians have made it very clear that health care is their
number one priority. The Government of Canada responded in the
last budget with $11.5 billion for health and a further $2.5
billion in budget 2000. That is not the end of it. That is the
beginning of supporting our health care system. Very clearly a
scope of discussion is necessary for the federal government and
all the stakeholders, the provinces, the territories and others,
to address a broad range of issues to ensure that the health care
priority of Canadians is being met in a co-operative and
collaborative fashion by all stakeholders.
In the remaining time I want to talk about my experience in the
health care system. Before I became a member of parliament I was
a member of the board of trustees of the Mississauga hospital for
about nine years. During that period I acted as treasurer for
some five years and one year as the vice-chair of the board. I
did have an opportunity to deal with all aspects of financing of
health care funding.
In my experience after nine years on the board of trustees of
the Mississauga hospital I developed a sincere and deep respect
for our health care professionals. Doctors and nurses in Canada
have the highest standards for which we could ever ask.
In a number of cases we were faced with issues where corners were
being cut. Not in one instance do I remember the medical staffs
or the nursing staffs saying that they would compromise the
quality of their work. They would rather not do the procedures
or not attempt to do the job unless they could do it to the best
of their ability. The professional code of conduct of our health
caregivers is absolutely irrefutable, and I want to make that
known.
1350
The whole idea of a health care crisis is possibly more show
than anything, only from the standpoint that our health care
system is an enormous system with many stakeholders and many
aspects to it. Things do not happen very quickly in the health
care system. It is a gradualist approach. It is a reflecting
strategy as priorities move and things happen within our value
system. We negotiate, compromise and discuss ways in which we
can meet priorities.
We have had a tremendous improvement in the health care system
not only in technology but also in medicine, the pharmacare side
of things. Hospitals and medical procedures can now be performed
in ways which were never contemplated before. The average length
of stay for a patient at the Mississauga hospital actually went
down from approximately 6.8 days per patient to 4.2 days. The
average length of stay went down significantly. This means that
bed days were saved and that money for the hospital and our
health care system was saved. This had no impact on the
re-admission rate. The work that was done showed that it was
taking advantage of new technology.
During this period the Mississauga hospital reduced its beds
from 650 to 600. At the same time it actually served more people
with less beds in their catchment area by making this move, again
showing the progress of our health system. Not only are the
lifestyles of Canadians changing but also the technology in
medicine in Canada is changing. It means that there has to be a
constant dialogue.
I congratulate the Minister of Health for making a firm
commitment to interim funding for health care as well as a firm
commitment to deal with all stakeholders to ensure a safe and
healthy system for all Canadians.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Madam Speaker, the
hon. member mentioned that the health care system was not just
about dollars, that it was about more than dollars, that it was
about the value Canadians hold. This motion is about the value
of our publicly funded health care system. I am sure many
Canadians right across the country were looking to the budget to
support that system and to give some real meaning and input into
it.
I had the honour of meeting with several people in my
constituency last week regarding mental health issues. There was
quite a cross-section of people representing various interests
including the police, young peoples associations, community
mental health workers, doctors and so forth. The one common
concern that came out of this meeting was the lack of resources
to provide adequate health care for those suffering from mental
illness.
When we refer to the values that Canadians hold, they can be of
no value unless we attach value to the health care system and
support it with the proper resources. What would be the hon.
member's comments in this regard?
Many of our seniors have difficulty with the high cost of drugs
and dental care. A gentleman asked me the other day if I could
get the federal government to provide some kind of dental care
program so seniors could meet the high cost of having their teeth
looked after. These are small things to people, but they are all
part of Canadians taking control of their lives. People feel
they have lost control and that control is being put more and
more into the hands of the private for profit corporations and
companies. Would the hon. member comment on my remarks?
1355
Mr. Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, in answer to the hon.
member, there is no question that this is not a matter of
dollars. We found out that the province of Ontario had $3.5
billion available and only used $800 million. We found out that
Newfoundland also did not use all the money it was provided in
the last budget, as well as Quebec and another $800 million. It
is very clear that in those three provinces, and I suspect in
others, the pressure with regard to it being not enough money is
really not the point. There is a much broader question being
raised and the money thing seems to be the proxy for the
question.
The member raised an interesting issue, though. In a situation
where home care facilities or community care is not available,
hospital beds are used by people who are looking for long term
care facilities. I believe that home care is a very important
part of the long term solution to alleviating the pressures on
existing hospital services. I for one, and I think other members
will share the view, think that we have to look very carefully at
home care as one of the solutions that we should discuss with the
provinces.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, March 8 is International Women's Day. This day provides
us with an opportunity to reflect on the progress made to advance
women's equality and the challenges women face worldwide. The
national theme of the day “Canadian Women Taking Action to Make
a Difference” builds upon the commitment of women's
organizations and the Government of Canada to end poverty and
violence against women.
In the spirit of the day, thousands of women in all regions of
the globe will participate in the World March of Women beginning
an international campaign aimed at raising awareness and
mobilizing people to join in the effort to improve the lives of
women.
I call upon all my colleagues in the House to participate in the
march or other educational activities in their ridings and to
support the Beijing platform for action currently under review.
Our collective efforts can make a difference.
* * *
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, all
week the finance minister has been huffing and puffing about how
he has delivered Canadians from high taxes and hidden tax grabs.
Curiously, though, his budget made no mention of lowering gas
taxes which make up almost half the price of a litre of gasoline.
The finance minister must be too busy to explain that the
current gas price crisis can partially be blamed on the fact that
the government refuses to remove an excise tax that was put in
place in 1981 to pay for the creation of Petro-Canada. This tax
costs Canadians an extra 8 cents per litre every time they fill
up.
In the 19 years this tax has been in effect the government has
skimmed approximately $30.4 billion from Canadians. The original
cost of Petro-Canada was $1.46 billion. That is an extra $28.9
billion that the government has quietly been pinching from
Canadians over the last 19 years.
When the finance minister howls with delight over his supposed
tax cuts, Mr. Speaker, you will forgive me if all I hear is a lot
of hot air.
* * *
AGRICULTURE MUSEUM
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, three
and a half years ago a terrible fire destroyed one of the barns
at the Agriculture Museum. Two great heritage buildings were
lost in the fire and 57 animals perished. The only survivor was
a Limousin cow named Rosanne. Today Rosanne is well and she is
about to get a new home. It is my pleasure to announce that the
new horse and cattle barn will open on Friday, March 3.
The Agriculture Museum is one of Ottawa's best kept secrets. It
is a fully functional farm, open to the public, where everyone
can learn about the importance of agriculture and experience the
sights, sounds and smells of the country without leaving the
city.
On behalf of Rosanne and her barn mates, I invite everyone to
the grand opening of their new home tomorrow.
* * *
SANDRA SCHMIRLER
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians across the country are saddened
today by news that Sandra Schmirler, Canada's Olympic gold
curling champion, died of cancer in hospital earlier this morning
at the age of 36.
She had been ill since last fall when doctors found a cancerous
tumour.
1400
Few Canadians will forget the emotional news conference Ms.
Schmirler held in Moncton on February 11 when she bravely said,
“It's been a hell of a fight”. Well, it turned out to be a
five month fight and she fought valiantly right to the end.
Ms. Schmirler brilliantly skipped her rink to Olympic gold two
years ago in Japan. Her team also won three world championships.
She was a great sports woman who set an example for athletes
across the country. She was loved and admired by all curlers and
her many, many curling fans. She will be greatly missed.
Mr. Speaker, please join me in extending my sincerest
condolences to her husband Shannon England and their two young
daughters.
* * *
GOVERNMENT GRANTS
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for a number
of years I taught mathematics and finance to banking students at
the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology.
I had a very unfortunate experience when I caught three students
cheating on an exam. I recommended that these students be
immediately withdrawn from the program, arguing that they were
people who would be handling large amounts of other people's
money in their careers and their absolute trustworthiness was
absolutely essential.
Now we have the top banker in Canada, the finance minister, not
lifting a finger in protest over the lack of trust generated by
the mishandling of billions of taxpayers' dollars. I do not know
why he or the Prime Minister does not take action. Of course, it
is uncomfortable to remove people from their positions, but it
has to be done or the public trust will be lost.
* * *
NATIONAL FARM SAFETY WEEK
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, next week, March 8 to 15, is
National Farm Safety Week. It is a time to renew the message to
Canada's farmers and their families that they can take steps to
protect themselves from injury on their farms.
There is a high risk of on the job injury and death in the
farming profession. Farming accidents are often a needless
tragedy for families and the communities affected, creating
emotional financial hardship and significant loss to farming
communities of valued contributors.
This year the theme is “Use ROPS and a Seat Belt”. Accidents
with tractors and self-propelled vehicles are the leading cause
of death and injury to Canadian farmers. We encourage farmers to
equip their tractors with a rollover protective structure and to
buckle up. It is a small effort to keep a loved one safe.
The government's rural caucus is well aware of this issue. It
commends the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian
Coalition for Agricultural Safety and Rural Health, Agriculture
and Agri-Food Canada, the Farm Credit Corporation and others for
their support of National Farm Safety Week.
Please farm safely. Do it for you, for your loved ones and for
your community.
* * *
[Translation]
RAILWAY INDUSTRY
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday we learned in the Journal de Montréal that
Canadian railways are nothing more than vast open air toilets.
I would like to pay tribute to the Liberal government's
leadership, management and concern for the environment in the
railway sector.
Let us hope that, during the two years of reflection he has set
aside to consider the future of the railway industry in Canada,
the Minister of Transport will look into the lack of basic
hygiene, which harks back to the dark ages.
The Liberal government's budget cuts have left VIA without the
means anymore to modernize its cars and to equip them with
suitable holding tanks for the toilets.
Soon, the Quebec City-Windsor corridor will look like a vast open
sewer.
The result of good Liberal management is a bad smell offending a
lot of people.
* * *
FEDERAL TRANSFERS FOR HEALTH
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
while it continues to cry out for more federal health transfers,
the Government of Quebec of Lucien Bouchard and his deputies
Rémi Trudel and André Pelletier has done nothing with the
$842 million allocated in the 1999 federal budget that was
available to them anytime.
These PQ officials have let $842 million sit in the Toronto
Dominion Bank, in Toronto, in the province next to Quebec. They
did not even have the courage to transfer it to a caisse
Desjardins or to a bank in Quebec, which might improve health
care in hospitals in Abitibi—Témiscamingue and throughout Quebec.
According to the government of Lucien Bouchard, “The health care
problem is not a money problem, it is a planning and management
problem”.
So, Messrs. Trudel and Pelletier, why leave this money sit in
the Toronto Dominion Bank in Toronto? The people of Abitibi are
still waiting for you to wake up and transfer the money to
Quebec.
* * *
[English]
SANDRA SCHMIRLER
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Sandra Schmirler, a daughter, a wife, a mother and a curling
hero, succumbed to cancer today at age 36 in Regina. She had
three world championships, three Scott Tournament of Hearts
championships and the famous Olympic gold medal that she and her
team won in Nagano.
1405
I was in New Brunswick during the 1998 Winter Olympics. I set
my alarm for 3.30 in the morning so I could get up and watch her
great team play. I loved every minute watching those games.
Sandra is the most decorated women's curler in Canadian history.
Her teams are legendary. We grieve with all of her teammates who
have lost their skip and a dear friend today.
The world was her stage but Sandra's life is her legacy. On the
ice, on the hospital bed, on the airwaves, she showed us how to
have drive, determination and above all, love and laughter.
To her husband Shannon, her children Sara and Jenna, and to her
entire family, we say thank you for sharing this marvellous woman
with us. We grieve and we pray with you. The eternal God is
your refuge and underneath are the everlasting arms.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Mike Harris says that health care funding is inadequate.
That tax cut tyrant has made a disaster of the social programs in
Ontario. He prefers to put money in the pockets of millionaires
rather than tend to the sick and needy.
Last year's federal budget and this year's budget have increased
cash transfers in the amount of $3 billion annually. That is a
25% increase in cash transfers. But it does not stop there.
There is $3 billion next year, $3 billion in 2002, and $3 billion
every year beyond. That is a strong response.
In the long term our health minister has asked the provincial
ministers to meet and develop a strategy. When an agreement is
reached, the federal government will be there with added funding.
* * *
VOLUNTEERISM
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the outstanding
volunteer efforts of Mr. Thomas McKaig from my riding of
Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale. Mr. McKaig recently travelled
to Costa Rica to help a local bank with new banking regulations.
Canadian Volunteer Advisors to Business is supported by many
Canadian organizations, including CIDA. Last year their
volunteers contributed 23,000 days of aid in various regions,
including developing nations.
Every time a Canadian travels overseas as a volunteer, Canada's
international image is enhanced. Since many organizations depend
on volunteerism, I encourage more Canadians to volunteer at the
local or international level.
I would also ask all my fellow MPs to lend their support to CESO
initiatives like Mr. McKaig's.
* * *
SANDRA SCHMIRLER
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is with deep regret and sadness that I rise today on
behalf of all members of parliament to honour the life and
contributions made by Regina's Sandra Schmirler. Sandra died this
morning after an intense battle with cancer. She was only 36
years old.
We all remember how Sandra and her rink captivated the world
when they won their first ever gold medal for women's curling at
the Nagano Olympics two years ago.
Sandra was a role model for all of us. She was a six time
Saskatchewan women's champion, three time Canadian champion, and
three time world champion.
She was a true fighter not only bravely battling cancer but also
other issues close to her heart. Her skill on the ice was
matched by her courage for life.
I would like to extend on behalf of all of us our deepest
sympathy to her husband Shannon England, her two young children
Sara and Jenna, and the rest of her family. Our prayers and our
thoughts are with them.
We may have lost Sandra but her spirit lives on for her family,
for her community, for the people of Saskatchewan and for all the
people of Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in its
first red book, the Liberal Party wrote that environmental
protection “will be the cornerstone of Liberal foreign policy”.
In its second Red Book, the Liberal government said it agreed
“that climate change is one of today's most crucial
environmental issues, posing a threat to Canada's ecological and
economic well-being—The costs of inaction on climate change
are too high”.
1410
Yet the 2000 budget contains nothing more in connection with
greenhouse gases than the investment of a mere $285 million over
the next four years, when the Liberals ought to have invested at
least $1.5 billion over five years in order to fulfil their Kyoto
commitments.
Today, the Liberals are betraying their commitment and adopting
a short-sighted approach. It is high time that the Liberals' red
books were recycled.
* * *
HEALTH BUDGET
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Minister
Bernard Landry has confirmed that his government deprived the
people of Quebec of $841 million in the health system.
According to Mr. Landry, the problem in the health system would
appear not to be financial. What a scandalous statement.
Let Mr. Landry try that explanation on for size with the people
travelling to the United States for medical care.
Let Mr. Landry try that on for size with the people backed up in
emergency department waiting rooms.
Let Mr. Landry try that on for size with the people in the
Outaouais region of Quebec who have just lost some of their
physicians.
Once again, this is a real scandal.
* * *
[English]
CFB SHILO
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today with great pride to congratulate and recognize one of
the finest military training facilities and some of the finest
military personnel that we have anywhere in North America.
Over 150 soldiers from CFB Shilo embarked on a six month tour of
Bosnia yesterday. Most of the troops on tour are from the 1st
Regiment of the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery along with
soldiers from other sections and branches of CFB Shilo.
This marks the largest deployment out of CFB Shilo since 1992
when troops departed for Cyprus. It also marks the historic
occasion of the first operational use of Canadian artillery since
the Korean war. Our troops will be replacing a British light
artillery unit in Bosnia. The first rotation of troops left
yesterday and will be followed by a second rotation in April.
I would like to extend my congratulations to all the soldiers at
CFB Shilo and wish them a safe return in October.
* * *
MOZAMBIQUE
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the first week of February torrential rains began to
fall in Mozambique causing the worst floods in 50 years. Before
it could recover, Mozambique was hit again last week by a cyclone
leaving 65,000 people homeless.
I am proud to say that Canada has responded to this natural
disaster by providing the people of Mozambique with $1.6 million
in assistance. This money will provide food, blankets, medicine,
clean water and urgently needed air support.
In the latest budget Canada has increased bilateral
international assistance to $435 million over the next three
years. This means Canada can continue to help other countries
like Mozambique that face catastrophic natural disasters.
This budget demonstrates that Canada continues to be a generous
and fair country.
* * *
FUEL PRICES
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, fuel
prices are exorbitant and yesterday crude oil hit a record high
of over $31 a barrel. The impact this is having on the trucking
industry is beginning to affect all consumers as blockades are
preventing supplies from getting to retailers. Truckers feel
this is their only option to get the government's attention, but
so far they have been ignored.
The federal government collects significant amounts of tax
dollars from the excise tax on fuel. Unless there is some
assistance provided to truckers, many of them who have contacted
my office have suggested that they may be forced to sell their
trucks and may even face bankruptcy.
Other people are dependent on fuel too. Seniors on fixed
incomes are dependent on fuel. Students who travel to university
are dependent on fuel. Everyday ordinary Canadians who travel to
work are dependent on fuel. It is a federal and a provincial
responsibility. So far the federal has been ignoring its
responsibility.
* * *
[Translation]
THE BUDGET
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the National Council of Welfare, a federal lead social policy
agency, was very critical of the finance minister's budget at a
press conference.
Its vice-president, Armand Brun, recalled that the government had
promised a budget for children. “Where is that budget?”, did he
ask. He went even further, saying “It is the people who do not
vote in an election who have been ignored”.
1415
And he is right. The Liberal Party chose to ignore the poor and
to be generous to those who are better off. For example, the
Minister of Finance preferred to lower the tax rate on capital
gains, thus allowing investors to save $135 million in 2001 and
$230 million in 2002.
This is the compassion shown by this Liberal government, which
would rather provide new tax shelters to its rich friends than
put bread and butter on the table for those who do without.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this year's budget calls for taxpayers to hand over
about $160 billion of our money to the government and taxpayers
expect those dollars to be used wisely.
Earth Canada is a company that lost millions of dollars over the
last four years but all of a sudden, despite its losing record,
it gets a $10 million line of credit from the Export Development
Corporation. Why would a company with a losing track record like
that qualify for $10 million of federal government aid and
support?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the opposition leader for his
question. I will look into the precise file that he has raised
with me and with the House. I will give him a full answer when I
can really look into the particular case that he is raising here
today.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the former minister of human resources development is
about as enlightening on this subject as the current minister.
I wonder if there is not a better explanation for the sudden
improvement in the fortunes of Earth Canada. Last year Earth
Canada added to its board of directors none other than René
Fugère of illegal lobbying fame and Gilles Champagne of illegal
trust fund fame, the cronies of the Prime Minister. Is it the
close connection between these people and the Prime Minister that
got them this reception from the minister's agent?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will look into the file of Earth Canada
that the member raises. I know that EDC has very strict criteria
when it deals with businesses. We will look into it and I will
refer back.
The Leader of the Opposition did not warn us that he would raise
a particular company so that we could check it ahead of time.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Earth Canada has a track record of doing nothing but
losing money. A fiscally responsible government agency would
laugh them out of the office if they came there looking for $10
million of support, but not this government. It does not ask
about the track record. It asks if Mr. Fugère or Mr. Champagne
is on the board.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Why is it that
every time we turn over a rock one of the Prime Minister's
cronies crawls out from underneath it?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member's insinuations do not resonate with
Canadians. If he were serious about what is going on in Canada
he would ask questions about the budget.
Once again, by his baseless insinuations, by his questions which
are full of rocks, he is giving a wonderful endorsement to the
overall budget of the hon. Minister of Finance and this Liberal
government.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to tell the Deputy Prime Minister that this is the
budget. If millions and millions of Canadian taxpayers dollars
are not part of the budget, I do not know what is.
This scandal is spreading from the HRD minister. Now it is
through international trade. The Prime Minister himself is
involved in it. We know that. It is amazing how much money you
can shake loose when you have friends in high places.
Fugère and Champagne have a long history of delivering cash. Now
they have secured Earth Canada a $10 million line of credit, and
I doubt if it was an accident. How is it that the very mention
of their names turns on the taps?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member is making an accusation. She is creating an
innuendo and an insinuation but she has given no facts to back
them up. Let the record show there is no factual basis for her
question in the text of that question.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
let us just go through a few facts.
The 1995 net loss, $800,000; the 1996 net loss, $500,000; the
1997 net loss, $260,000. Are there any more facts that we need?
1420
Miraculously Fugère and Champagne came on the board and they
were given a $10 million line of credit. Now these are the facts
and they speak for themselves. Why is it that Fugère and
Champagne have such an amazing command over the public purse?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has not demonstrated in any way, shape
or form in her question a connection between these individuals
and the decision on the grant.
If she had given notice beforehand to me or the minister, we
would have got the facts faster and replied to her question. If
she were serious she would have given us notice. As she has not
given us notice, that shows what is missing in the hon. member's
approach, especially in her question.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Deputy Prime Minister is asking for facts. Surely he must have
a few. There are nine investigations involving Human Resources
Development Canada, three of them in the Prime Minister's riding
alone. I imagine that there were facts for there to have been
investigations.
Since 30,000 projects are involved, the picture will not become
clear overnight if we take it one investigation at a time.
Does the minister not think it is high time there was an
independent, public inquiry into all the projects? We want a
clear picture.
[English]
Let us make it clear, as she says.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member mentioned, we are
talking about tens of thousands of grants and contributions. They
are found in the ridings of all members of parliament. I would
encourage members of parliament to take the information we have
provided to them and go and visit these projects to see their
money at work.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
deeper we dig, the more the Liberal Party and the government
look like the family compact.
I have here a list of transitional job fund projects dated
November 29. There are two troubling discrepancies. First, six
projects received $1,618,970 but it is not known whether any
jobs were created. Twenty-five other projects, which received a
total of $11,969,497, created no jobs at all.
Does this not warrant an inquiry? When is she going to wake up?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us review some of the facts. Again,
if the hon. member wants to provide the details on those
particular projects, I will find the information for him, and
remember, Mr. Speaker, in all the transitional jobs fund projects
the Government of Quebec had to concur before moneys flowed.
Again we are talking about a program that created opportunities
for Canadians where there were none before, and from our point of
view that is a good role for the Government of Canada to play.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, on top of the administrative boondoggle, there
have been a number of partisan deals going on, involving friends
of the government.
We have learned from Mr. Vallerand that the person at the centre
of the CITEC affair is Paul Lemire, a person who has been found
guilty of tax evasion.
Is the minister going to again deny the evidence that, on top of
the administrative boondoggles going on within her department,
it is also rife with partisan bias, particularly in the riding
of Saint-Maurice?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I categorically reject the allegation
made by the hon. member. With regard to that particular project,
he knows full well that it is before the RCMP and I will say no
more at this time.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister cannot use the RCMP investigation
as justification for her refusal to reply. The argument of its
being before the courts does not apply, because it is in fact
not yet before the courts.
Given the way that this affair is expanding, particularly in the
riding of Saint-Maurice, is the minister going to bow to the only
possible conclusion and institute a public and independent
inquiry?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there already is an independent investigation by the auditor
general, an officer of this House. Is the hon. member now
saying that he does not have faith in the auditor general?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Herb Gray: If this is the case, he is wrong, in my
opinion.
* * *
1425
[English]
THE BUDGET
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
government tabled a budget with two cents for health care for
every dollar in tax cuts. Now, not surprisingly, it has swung
into full damage control. Now it is hinting, no, no, there will
be more money.
I ask the finance minister if there will be more money for
health care. With the health care system in such crisis, why is
the government withholding it?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
if the leader of the NDP wants to talk about money, let us talk
about money. The NDP's own platform in the 1997 election said it
wanted a floor of $15 billion in cash for the CHST. We have
exceeded that.
NDP members said they wanted to restore $7 billion for health.
We have doubled that already. On November 4, 1998, the leader of
that party in the House called for an additional $2.5 billion for
health. Since then we have invested over $14 billion.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we
talked cash this morning and we will talk cash again. Let us
talk changes. The health care system does need change.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, we will talk money
again but let us talk about the change the minister says we need.
Very conveniently he omits the references to the home care and
the pharmacare promise and the money needed for that.
We need the government to be a leader in the changes that are
required if we hope to maintain a Canada-wide health care system.
Federal cash is the ticket of admission to participating in those
changes. No cash, no clout. No clout, no Canada-wide health
care. Will there be more federal cash, and if so when and how
much?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as to clout and cash, as I mentioned yesterday the Government of
Canada now contributes over one-third of all public health
spending in the country every year.
I also emphasize that apart from the additional money we are
working constructively for the kinds of changes that are needed.
The provinces recognize it is not just a matter of money.
[Translation]
Minister Bernard Landry's statement yesterday made it clear. He
said “The problem in health is not a problem of money, it is a
planning problem, a management problem”. I fully agree.
* * *
[English]
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, it seems that wherever the Prime Minister's good
friends René Fugère and Gilles Champagne go taxpayer money is
sure to follow.
Would the Minister for International Trade please explain how
the addition of these two individuals to the board of directors
of Earth Canada suddenly qualified that company for a $10 million
credit? And, would the minister tell us what matters most here?
Is it qualifications or friendship to the Prime Minister?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I told the Leader of the Opposition
very well earlier, I will look into that file very carefully.
I can say that the Export Development Corporation has a very
good record of helping Canadian companies to export around the
world. Are we against exports? No. EDC is doing a wonderful
job assisting a lot of Canadian companies to do better on
international markets, and I will look into this particular file
later on.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, there are a few basics the minister should keep in
mind. For example, René Fugère is under criminal investigation
by the RCMP. Neither Mr. Fugère nor Mr. Champagne has registered
under the Lobbyists Registration Act.
My question is for the Minister for International Trade. Why is
his department even dealing with these individuals? For the sake
of the integrity of the system and of saving taxpayer money, will
the minister suspend this loan until we get to the bottom of
this, until the air has cleared?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the EDC takes its full responsibility. It
has its way of dealing with Canadian companies that is fair and
equitable.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. Members have heard the
question. I think we should hear the answer.
1430
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear
that the EDC is working on a commercial basis with a lot of
Canadian companies. It is helping Canadian companies do well in
international markets, exporting Canadian goods and creating job
opportunities in this country. The EDC made a profit of $118
million last year for the Government of Canada. It is doing a
great job.
I will look into the particular file which the opposition
party—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Mr. Fugère first popped up four days before the last
election, announcing a big grant in the Prime Minister's riding
before that grant had ever been approved. Since then he has been
directly connected with at least four other grants of public
money. He is under RCMP investigation for unregistered lobbying.
Now we find that with his appointment to the board, another
company magically receives a transfusion backed by the taxpayer.
Will the government please explain to Canadians why their money
is anted up so promptly for this friend of the Prime Minister?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find the opposition a little repetitive
today. It is unfortunate that the budget is not able to provide
them with opportunities to put questions of interest.
I have made it very clear that I will look into the specific
file of the hundreds or thousands of files that we have. Members
of the opposition did not indicate that they would be raising the
matter of a particular file. I will look into it and report back
to the House. I am confident that the EDC is doing a wonderful
job for Canadian companies in international markets.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a news flash for the government. We are going to
keep asking these questions until we get answers.
Here is something from Earth Canada's website after the Prime
Minister's friends joined its board: “Meetings were held in
Ottawa in connection with the export financing of future sales”.
Boy, were these meetings ever successful. They netted a $10
million line of credit from the Export Development Corporation,
backed by the Canadian taxpayer.
What is it about these men that has such influence with the
Liberal government?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the opposition were really serious
about getting an answer on a specific file it would have given
notice to the government.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have here
two lists, one obtained under the Access to Information Act and
the other from the minister, with two sets of figures.
In the first list, Household Finance received $2,505,000 in the
riding of Mercier to create 522 jobs; in the other, the same
company received $2,841,600 in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve to create
592 jobs.
How does the minister explain this difference of 70 jobs and
$300,000?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said on a number of occasions,
there are no master lists. Indeed, we have collected the
information from seven different databanks. The information does
change. Companies have name changes. There are circumstances
when companies do not survive. The lists may change with a
specific request made. The 10,000 pages that we presented to
parliament last week are there. I would be glad to confirm the
difference in the information the hon. member has if she wants to
provide me the details.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the problem
is far more serious than the minister is saying.
The list obtained under the Access to Information Act referred
to a payment $2,505,000. The director of the East Montreal
human resources centre told us that only $120,000 was paid out.
And she told us that it was initially intended to be $2,841,000.
Where did the money go?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I will be glad to
reconcile the lists for the hon. member.
Again, let us be clear. There were no master lists.
1435
In response to the hon. member, when the human resources
development committee asked for information on the details of
federal grants and contributions from my department on a riding
by riding basis, we provided it.
* * *
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
would have been happy to have given the government notice, except
that we were very doubtful it would have been able to find the
file the way things have been going lately.
Fugère and Champagne seem to be magnets for taxpayers' money,
but especially so when the international trade minister is the
one who is making the decisions. When he was at HRDC they were
on the gravy train. Now he goes to international trade and who
shows up? Fugère and Champagne.
What is it about the minister's relationship with these guys
that causes him to open up the cheque book whenever they come
calling?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I reject the allegations of the member.
This is ridiculous. I have said that when he really wants an
answer, instead of making cheap political shots as the opposition
likes to do, he can serve notice on a particular file so we can
look into it.
I will tell the member that I have every confidence the EDC
serves Canadian companies well. It made $118 million last year
helping Canadian companies do well in international markets.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
surely the minister does not expect us to believe that he has not
heard of René Fugère lately. His name has been in the papers
every day. We have talked about him every day in this place. He
should have some sense that Mr. Fugère has been very involved
with his department in the last little while; in fact, in both of
the departments he has overseen in the last little while.
Given that this man has been involved in an RCMP investigation
and that Champagne has been involved in an investigation about an
illegal trust fund, why is it that these people can come to his
department, no matter which department it is, and wring
taxpayers' money of his pocket?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us make it clear. There is an arm's
length relationship between the EDC and the Department of
International Trade. We should be careful, this is not the
minister.
I can tell that these people have never been in government and
probably never will. If they think a minister just gets out the
cheque book and writes a cheque, that is irresponsible.
Canadians deserve better information than this.
Frankly, this was the first time I heard of the company called
Earth Canada. How could I know that Mr. Fugère was the director
of that company when it was the first time I heard about it?
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
morning before the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development, the deputy minister confirmed that she could not
report the actual number of jobs created or the amounts actually
spent for each project under the transitional jobs fund.
Can the minister say otherwise?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we have promised, there will be a
review of the transitional jobs fund. First, an external
corporation will look not only at the transitional jobs fund, but
also at the Canada jobs fund. Second, the auditor general will
look at all of the grants and contributions. Surely, as an
officer of the House, the hon. member will accept him as having
an unbiased view.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, really,
the answers are incredible.
What is keeping the minister from initiating a public and
independent inquiry, which would be the only investigation we
would have any faith in?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us remember that there are
transitional jobs funds and now Canada jobs fund dollars working
in the ridings of Bloc members.
It is those members who write in support of these programs and
talk about how valuable they are to Quebecers.
1440
Let us remember that the Government of Quebec approves and
participates in the decisions for all of these projects. Surely
they are not now saying that they did not want the money in their
ridings.
* * *
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it looks like the international trade minister is starting to do
the HRD shuffle. He says he is going to look into the file, but
his fingerprints are already all over this scandal. He goes to
international trade and guess who shows up? René Fugère and
Gilles Champagne. His fingerprints are all over this scandal.
Why is it that taxpayer dollars start to flow when these two
friends of the Prime Minister show up at his doorstep?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will look into that file very
carefully. The innuendoes and the allegations of the opposition
member seem to be completely wrong again, because on the first
verifications that have just been made this company would not
even be a client of the EDC.
We will look into it again, but they look completely wrong again.
They are just trying to move dirt around. That is what they like
to do. We lead them in the country, Mr. Speaker—
The Speaker: The rhetoric is starting to rank up a bit.
Take it easy. The hon. member for Dewdney—Alouette.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, likely the file is sitting right on top of his desk with
his fingerprints all over it.
René Fugère is under RCMP investigation. He is an unpaid aide
to the Prime Minister. He is a close personal friend of the
Prime Minister. Gilles Champagne is a two-time political
appointee. He set up an illegal trust fund. He is a Liberal
Party fundraiser and he is a close friend to the Prime Minister.
These two show up at the international trade minister's doorstep
and they get instant access to millions of dollars. How can he
possibly explain this scandal?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is remarkable to see members of the
official opposition line up for a question on a specific case
which they did not even warn us about. The first information we
have is that Earth Canada is not even a client of the EDC and
that all of these allegations seem to be, again, completely
wrong.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a Globax
statistical report released by Human Resources and Development
Canada indicates that the number of jobs at Placeteco fell
constantly between May 1997 and May 1998, when the bankrupt
company was bought by Claude Gauthier.
However, that individual benefited from a $1.2 million grant,
which was supposed to create 174 jobs. At this point, there are
only 75 to 80 jobs left.
Could the minister tell us how the $1.2 million given to Claude
Gauthier, in violation of Treasury Board rules, was used?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have commented on this particular
project a number of times. I would like to remind the House that
Placeteco has just signed a three-year collective agreement with
its employees and, as well, has signed a five-year contract of $8
million with a major aeronautical company. It will continue to
create jobs in Shawinigan.
I find it passing strange that this member has time and again
asked me about the importance of providing improved parental
benefits to Canadians, and yet she has no interest in that now
because with our budget we have clarified that we are doubling
parental benefits for Canadians across Canada.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food.
Admittedly, the Government of Canada has already provided an
additional $1 billion in funding nationwide and a further $240
million for Manitoba and Saskatchewan farmers to help them
through these trying times.
Can the government give its assurance that service fees to be
levied by the Canadian Grain Commission would not pose a new
financial burden to our farmers?
1445
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians know this government is there
as much as we possibly can be to assist Canadian farmers.
The Canadian Grain Commission has a world-renowned reputation
for ensuring the quality and reputation of Canadian grains. Over
the last number of years, the volume of grain has decreased and,
in spite of efficiencies that have been put in place, a deficit
has accumulated.
I am pleased to announce today that the Government of Canada is
coming forward with $20 million to cover that debt and $63
million over the next four years to ensure that the mandatory
fees are frozen for another four years on top of the ten years
for which they have already been frozen.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister for International Trade has been talking about the EDC
and its good record. I would like to remind him that we are
talking about a money-losing corporation with the Prime
Minister's cronies on its board.
Why did the taxpayers get hooked for $10 million for the cronies
of the Prime Minister?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the official opposition for its
questions on a supposed EDC loan to a company called Earth
Canada. It is a very specific case which I do not happen to have
in my books right now. I will look into it very carefully.
I can tell the House that EDC is doing a very fine—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The Hon. Minister for
International Trade.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, let us be very
clear. The EDC is doing a very constructive job helping Canadian
companies export on international markets. It is doing that on a
commercial basis and it is making money for the Government of
Canada year after year. That is the reality.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
need the binder boy to move from over there to here.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I would prefer that we
address each other by titles.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have a right to
know. Why are the taxpayers funding deals for the friends of the
Prime Minister?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I reject the allegations of the hon.
member. These innuendoes are not acceptable in the House. I
think it is absolutely ridiculous to come back on one particular
case which I have already volunteered to look into very
carefully. I will look into it with our responsible people at
EDC.
The one thing I can say is that EDC lends on a commercial basis
and does a very good job for Canadian companies on international
markets. That is the reality.
* * *
CANADA HEALTH ACT
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, we now know enough about the Alberta legislation on
private for-profit hospitals, to be tabled in one hour's time, to
realize that Premier Klein's bill is contrary to the Canada
Health Act. We know it is a clever ruse and that it is a crafty
strategy. It separates out some procedures done in hospitals and
it establishes overnight stay patient surgical facilities. It is
truly a Trojan horse for the privatization of health care.
Will the minister now act immediately to close the door to
two-tier health care?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I understand that the legislation will be tabled later today. It
has not yet been released publicly. I have already told the
House that I will look very carefully at that legislation. I
have already expressed real concern about many aspects of this
proposed policy. I raised serious questions with the minister of
health of Alberta.
I can assure the hon. member and the House that as soon as we
receive that legislation we will examine it very carefully to
determine whether it complies in letter and in spirit with the
Canada Health Act.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the minister will know, as we know, that the act very
clearly opens the door to private for-profit health care in
Canada. It is a dangerous precedent and I would hope that he
would have a more definitive answer today.
The minister will also know that the best defence against the
likes of Premiers Klein and Mike Harris and others who advocate
two-tier health care is cash for health care.
Will the minister finally agree to fully restore the cash
transfers to health care today?
1450
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have already made the point. The government has significantly
increased cash transfers and overall payments for health care. It
takes more than just money. It takes the additional money. It
takes planning, ideas and constructive change.
What is very disappointing about the NDP's position is that by
talking this way, by pretending that we are not doing our share
financially, it is opening the door to people like Mike Harris to
talk about two-tiered medicine.
Will the NDP stop helping Mike Harris? We will never accept
two-tiered medicine in this country.
* * *
DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development.
Can the minister confirm that selected journalists have been or
are being offered by a member of his department a briefing on an
internal departmental audit?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that indeed we
are not.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, will
the minister confirm that an internal audit of his department has
been completed, and can he inform the House when it will be
released?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I understand it,
at the department of Indian affairs we do audits on every first
nation. We do hundreds of audits every year. Exactly which one
is the member referring to?
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, so you will know, that we are
letting the press know exactly what the department of Indian
affairs is doing so that they will have all the facts before they
write the stories.
* * *
[Translation]
VOLUNTARY CHALLENGE AND REGISTRY PROGRAM
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the voluntary challenge and registry program, which was
established in 1995, is an integral part of Canada's National
Action Program on Climate Change. That program now includes 900
businesses across the country.
Could the Minister of Natural Resources tell us what benefits
this initiative has had?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the voluntary challenge and registry was created by my
department in partnership with the private sector a number of
years ago. It is now entirely under private leadership.
By proactive, voluntary means, it shows exactly how to marry
strong environmental stewardship with strong economic success. It
is saving energy. It is saving greenhouse gas emissions. It is
saving money.
In the budget recently we have added another $600 million to our
search for climate change solutions. Tonight, the Minister of
the Environment and I will award the 1999 awards to the VCR
champions from all across Canada.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister for International Trade is clearly
clueless, so let us paint the picture for him yet again.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Calgary—Nose Hill.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: We have a money losing company. In
fact just last year it lost nearly $2 million. After finding two
friends of the Prime Minister on its board, and after meetings in
Ottawa, which it posted on its website, it comes up with a $10
million taxpayer backstop line of credit.
The man supposedly in charge of all this pleads ignorance. I
guess he backstops so many companies with $10 million loans and
lines of credit that they just get lost in a blur. Maybe this is
the question—
1455
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. secretary of state.
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and
Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, maybe I could help
the opposition.
My colleague has so far said that there is nothing in his
department. However, there is an agency called Canada Economic
Development, of which I am in charge. Our role is to get
involved and to help corporations to better develop, not only in
the national market but at the international level as well. We
were involved with a corporation called Earth Canada. Since
their facts are not straight we are not sure if it is the same
corporation.
Let me tell the hon. member that we are talking about a very
small amount of money and we are talking about the repayment of
those contributions. They are doing well. We will keep being
involved in such corporations—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Lac-Saint-Jean.
* * *
[Translation]
MINISTER FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
the Minister for International Trade said that he had had very
good conversations with his deputy minister, that he had every
confidence, and that he wanted to reassure the House.
The minister must also have had some good conversations with his
former deputy ministers at CIDA and Human Resources Development
Canada. But we see nothing but disaster and scandal in his
wake.
How can we believe the minister and have confidence in him when
he has in his hands a budget of over $1 billion that is
completely exempt from the Access to Information Act?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must say that I obviously do not agree
with the allegations of the member for Lac-Saint-Jean.
I spoke with my deputy minister at International Trade and I can
assure the House that the funds we have been allocated fully
respect the criteria of our programs to help SMBs do well
internationally.
I can also assure the House that the Export—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. Members will please listen to the
response. The hon. Minister for International Trade.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: I wish to tell the House that I did
have a good conversation with my deputy minister, and I have
every confidence that Department of International Trade programs
are in good shape right now.
I also have every confidence that the Export Development
Corporation is doing a good job.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
failing health of our aboriginal peoples is a direct result of
the life they were forced into by Canadian government policy.
Last night CBC told Canadians from coast to coast about the
crisis on Island Lake. Those same conditions exist in numerous
first nation communities.
The budget ignored the aboriginal health crisis. There was not
one new dollar for first nations' health care. How long do
aboriginal people have to wait before the government does
something? How many must die?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last year's budget dedicated over $200 million to aboriginal
health and added the capacity of Health Canada to develop home
and community care on reserves in first nations communities and
to increase the number of medical personnel, including nurses.
It is very difficult, as the member will know, to engage the
services of doctors and nurses to provide services in far-flung
communities in the north. We are doing the best we can. We are
improving our resources and we will work toward meeting those
health care needs.
* * *
1500
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, in the
hours following the budget, the Minister of National Defence was
on television pitching a grocery list of the new expenditures of
his department. The minister is on the record as saying that the
Sea King replacement is his top priority but he has also recently
said that CF-18 refits is his top priority.
Will the minister please get up in the House and tell Canadians
when he is going to replace those Sea King helicopters that are
so dangerous and should not be in the air?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear. My top priority is
to make sure that our troops who do a great job for us get the
tools they need to do the job. Replacement of the Sea Kings is a
matter we are proceeding on at this moment. It is our top
procurement priority and one on which we are finalizing the
strategy because we need to replace those Sea King helicopters
and soon.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
think Canadians would be interested to know what the government
is going to bring forth in legislation or motions or whatever for
tomorrow and the week after our break.
Canadians are probably particularly interested to know whether
debate will be allowed or whether it is going to be shut down. We
are interested in whether the minister has reconsidered his
motion on the order paper which will restrict the democratic
rights of members of the opposition or whether he plans to bring
it in forthwith.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is
referring to the restoration of the rights of members and nothing
else.
This afternoon we shall complete the allotted day of the New
Democratic Party which I understand will result in a vote later
this day.
Tomorrow we shall consider the motion to improve the rules of
the House of Commons albeit temporarily, a motion which is in my
name. Should we complete these improvements early tomorrow, we
would then follow it with Bill C-10 and Bill C-13.
When we return on March 13, we shall attempt to complete the
study of the motion should it not be completed tomorrow and then
commence report stage of the clarity bill, Bill C-20, under the
very distinguished leadership of the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1505
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—HEALTH CARE
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to speak to the motion. It calls on the government
to stand up for our most cherished value but unfortunately it
picks a method which will not work. We need to look at the whole
health care crisis as one of planning.
The 1999 budget in terms of the initial possibility provided a
$3.5 billion infusion as well as the other $8 billion. There was
an opportunity for the provincial and territorial governments to
begin some planning. Also the 1999 budget provided real money
for investing in health information systems that would begin to
look at what was committed in the social union framework
agreement in terms of dealing with information that could help
Canadians understand how their health care dollars are being
spent, by whom and with what results.
What is happening with the provinces is similar to when I had to
try to explain to my father why I was asking for a raise in my
allowance.
I do not quite understand this crisis. We heard time after time
in the finance committee that this was a crisis of mismanagement
not a crisis of dollars. Patching it with more infusions in a
piecemeal way will not remotely help our health care system. It
reminds me of Michael Ignatieff's statement that the most
important barrier to progressive movements in this country is
some sort of nostalgic vision of a paradise in the past.
Money is not going to fix it without an absolute commitment to
real reform. Time after time the finance committee heard, even
from the employer committee of health care of Ontario, that
putting more money into the health care system even if it were
available is not the answer. International comparisons indicate
that the total level of financial support for Canadian health
care as a percentage of gross national product is among the
highest in the world.
We emphasized the need to start focusing on an integrated system
of delivering health care rather than continuing to support the
current system of inefficient, cost ineffective suppliers and
stakeholders. Our focus is for the best quality health care at
the lowest cost, a goal which we believe is shared by all levels
of government.
The Canadian Health Care Association said it was aware that
money alone would not solve all of the challenges facing the
health care system. We have to commit to do things differently.
The federal government must set an example. The pointing of
fingers in all levels of government should stop. We have to
regain our position as the moral authority but that is not done
by continuing to patch a system that needs real reform.
Monique Bégin in her speech to the health care economists at the
Emmett Hall lecture last August said that we have to remember
that between 1985 and 1995 Canada had increased its total health
expenditures dramatically without offering better services, or
more services, or different services to the public. Canada had
become and still is the second most expensive country in the
world in terms of total health care expenditures.
We have to figure out what does and does not work and stop doing
what does not work. It is a concern of mine that continuing to
patch a system that is inherently not a system, a patchwork quilt
of non-systems, is a huge barrier to progress. It is a huge
barrier to the ultimate sustainability of the the system. It is
too important to get on with real accountability.
It is important that we listen to Doug Angus of the University
of Ottawa and Queen's University who said that significant cost
savings are valuable. His 1995 paper said that there would be a
$7 billion in savings in the system if people were in the right
level of care. We need to benchmark better practices and share
those across Canada.
We need to invest. Hopefully the CIHR will do that. The
Council for Health Research said that we can no longer just do
disease based health research.
We have to do real research on the health care system itself to
ensure we effectively use our health care dollars in health care
delivery.
1510
This nation needs a plan. The plan must be based on
accountability. It cannot be some romantic vision of doing
things the same old way. We have to do things differently. The
British Medical Journal reported that if the airline system
were run the same way the health care system is run in North
America in terms of accountability, a 747 would be coming down
once a week and we would be doing something about it.
If 20% to 30% of admissions for seniors are because of drug
interactions that are totally preventable, we should be moving on
those policies. The minute the smoking rate comes down in youth,
we see a decrease in dollars for prenatal care, for premature
babies and for post-operative pneumonia. Removing scatter rugs
from the homes of seniors would dramatically prevent broken hips.
There are serious issues we have to get on with in terms of
prevention.
I am totally frustrated when childhood asthma goes up that
people just ask for more respirators. We cannot do this. Air
quality goes down, childhood asthma goes up. We have to deal
with the air quality.
It is extraordinarily important to note when looking at this big
underfunding crisis, which unfortunately is supported by our NDP
colleagues across the way, that the underfunding is going to get
us into big trouble. The evil dark forces from the Fraser
Institute to some of the medical associations are crying. In
terms of Alberta and Ontario, I believe they are desperately
trying to break medicare. They are trying to show us that there
will never be enough money, that the government pockets will
never be deep enough and that the only possible solution is
privatized medicine and user fees. We know user fees do not
work. They are only a deterrent to the most fragile in our
society, the pregnant teens and the fragile diabetics.
Private hospitals cost more money to society. I was in Alberta
last month when the Calgary hospital was blown up. It is
extraordinary that we ended up with this worry about waiting
lists. At least seven operating rooms were blown up and now
private operating rooms are needed to help with the waiting
lists. This is not okay and I must say I am not sure that it was
by accident.
There is absolute mismanagement or misplanning. Even Duncan
Sinclair said that the hospital restructuring process in Ontario
was done backward. If we build up the community support, we will
eventually need fewer hospitals and fewer beds. Doing it in the
opposite order creates a crisis.
A crisis has been created similar to what Michael Decter talked
about in that there would be a huge crisis if bank branches were
closed and people were not taught how to use ATMs. It is exactly
the same in closing hospitals without having the supports and
services in the community.
We must be smarter. We have to talk about real outcomes in
health care. How much money we spend is no longer good enough.
Mr. Harris spent $400 million in the severance package to lay off
nurses, $400 million to hire them back and $200 million to pay
the consultants to tell them how to fire them and hire them back.
This is not good spending of health care dollars. I do not want
$1 billion spent that way and I do not think we should give him
another $1 billion so he can do the same thing again.
It is extraordinary that we are in a position of being
blackmailed to give people more money when there is no evidence
as to how it is being spent. Canadians want it to be spent
properly. They do not want us throwing money at things if it is
not.
The social union framework agreement says that we will share
best practices with transparency and accountability. When I
chaired the World Health Organization's breakfast on TB, Canada
did not submit its TB numbers for last year. We have a zero at
the World Health Organization because the provinces would not
hand in their TB numbers. This is not co-operation. It is no
way to plan a health care system and we have to get on with it.
Harvard medical school professors have shown us that in the for
profit hospitals the costs were 25% higher than in the not for
profit hospitals. That is not in keeping with the social union
framework agreement.
In the social union framework agreement we promised that there
would be an equitable way of looking at things. I am hugely
enthusiastic and optimistic. We can have a perfect health care
system with 9.3% of the GDP.
1515
We need the provinces to come to the table with their best
practices. Let New Brunswick speak about its level of care. Let
us see the fabulous software program from McGill dealing with
drug interactions which could prevent unnecessary admissions. Let
Edmonton bring its knowledge on the flu epidemic. Let B.C. bring
its prevention knowledge.
If at the meeting with the minister in May every province shows
what it is doing perfectly well, we would have a fabulous health
care system. It will take them to drawing down the dollars that
have not been used in Quebec, Newfoundland and Ontario. We have
to get information technologies in there and make it an
accountable system which protects all Canadians, one that we can
be totally confident in.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe all members of the House have the same
objective of ensuring that the health care system is available to
all Canadians and has no financial barriers to it. We have a
serious problem. As the member knows we have an aging
population. The population of people over the age of 65 will
double in the next 30 years.
Ralph Klein is proposing in Alberta that if the public system
cannot take care of patients he will pay those in the private
sector to provide health care services. Then people on waiting
lists will get medical care when they need it at a cost lower
than the cost in the public system. How will this damage the
public system?
Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows
perfectly well that there is no evidence to show that a private
health care system is cheaper. The evidence we have seen from
around the world shows the administrative costs in a public
system are at 9%. In a private system the costs are at 25%.
My major concern is that human beings, the physicians and the
caregivers, are seduced to the private system, which makes the
public system waiting lists longer.
I have another concern about the private system. My experience
is with the tiny ones that exist in Toronto. What happens after
hours in private hospitals? Who looks after the complications?
The patients go straight back into the public system with even
less accountability.
I think we want a system that is properly organized, not one
that will actually allow doctors to be seduced into a private
system with no accountability. In a for profit system the
administration costs go up for some reason.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I listened to my colleague carefully. In her answer just now she
clearly indicates that she is opposed to private for profit
hospitals in health care. I take it she has no problem with that
part of the motion which we in the NDP put forward today. I know
she agrees that public health care is cherished by Canadians, so
she does not have a problem with the first part of the motion.
Is there a problem with the motion where it calls for
substantial and sustained increases in cash transfers to the
provinces? She talks about a partnership and sitting down with
the provinces and getting the best ideas. If the federal
government as a partner is only putting in 15 cents on the
dollar, does it not lose the moral authority to direct how the
health care system operates?
Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the
member's comments on the private sector. I do not agree that
cash transfers without accountability is the answer at all.
Canadians do not want us to be pointing fingers and dividing up
loonies in fifteens and thirties. Nobody really cares. It is
the same taxpayer. Whether it is a tax point or a cash transfer
or anything, people want the system to work. We as the federal
government should be able to share in the best practices across
the country.
I am hugely worried. We planned a system last year which was a
five year plan in terms of health care dollars. Because they
mismanaged they get to come back asking for more cash, more cash,
more cash, when they did not put in the information technology
and there are not accountable.
1520
When I ran for office Mr. Harris was complaining that it was our
fault that Women's College Hospital on Wellesley was being closed
when the reduction in the transfer in that year was $1.3 billion.
His 30% tax cut was $4.9 billion. He had more than the ability
to absorb that. I think Canadians are starting to get it, that
this is not about more and more and more. It is about doing it
better.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the member talking about the potential for losing
doctors to the private system. I think she called it being
seduced into the private system and away from the public sector.
I ask for her opinion on what is happening right now with
Canadian doctors being seduced into the private sector. It is
even worse than that. They are being seduced into the private
sector in the United States. We are losing all kinds of doctors
to the United States.
Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, a lot of those doctors
are coming home. The reason for that is that in Canada we
understand that the social determinants of health are
extraordinarily important. Good doctors have to work on poverty,
violence and the environment. There is a huge disincentive in
terms of family for doctors to want to stay there very long, and
the best and the brightest are coming home.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the NDP for bringing the motion to the floor of
the House. It is the most important issue affecting Canadians
today. While we have a different way of getting to our end
point, our end point is the same. We want to make sure that all
Canadians have access to health care when they need it and not
when the bottom line allows it, which is contrary to the
situation of today.
We must recognize that we have a problem. What are we asking
for? The problem is that the demand on our health care is
exceeding and stripping our ability to supply the resources. That
is why provinces like Alberta and Ontario are looking at ways to
ensure that their people, their citizens, will get health care
when they need it.
Speaking personally as a physician I can tell the House that too
often Canadians are not getting the health care they need. For
example, people in the province of Quebec are waiting 14 weeks
for essential cancer treatment. It is the same situation as in
the province of British Columbia. Some are being forced to the
United States at a cost that is far greater than what it would
cost in their own provinces. Why? It is not because the
provinces do not want to provide the system but because they
simply do not have the money to do it.
Right now every tenet of the Canada Health Act is being
violated. I will just go through them for the House. On the
issue of accessibility, is waiting 14 weeks accessible health
care for essential cancer treatment? Is waiting six months for
open heart surgery accessible health care?
The first day I walked into my hospital at Christmas when I
worked for a week, I did not think it was fair that 12 out of 14
beds in my emergency department were filled with patients waiting
to get into the hospital. They were not geriatric patients but
people waiting to get into the ICU because they had unstable
angina. There were patients with compound fractures, sick
children who needed admission to the hospital for investigation,
and many other people.
Why? It is because we do not have any beds. Why? It is
because the hospital does not have any money to open hospital
rooms. It does not have money to pay for nurses. That is why
people are not getting accessible health care.
The next day we had a disaster. A bus full of children was hit
by a logging truck. Only two of them were critically injured.
Let us imagine if more were injured. We would have been in a
situation that I do not even want to comprehend.
I would like to speak to the myth of universality. Quebec has
not signed on. Although 90% of the people of the province of
British Columbia have done, so some 10% of people have no health
care.
On the issue of portability, can people take the same health
care from one province to another? In theory, yes, but in
practice they cannot because different things are covered in
different provinces.
On the issue of public administration, one-third of all health
care dollars spent in the country today comes from the private
sector, from people's pockets.
1525
People do not have access to home care. They do not have access
to dental services. They do not have access to certain drugs or
only have access if they have dollars in their pockets. The
nonsense portrayed by members on the other side who say that we
have a single tier system is absolute bunk. We have had a
multi-tier system for years and it is getting worse.
As I mentioned in my earlier question, the population is aging.
The cold hard reality is that the number of people aged 65 will
double in the next 30 years. People use 70% of health care
dollars after the age of 65. As they get older, the number of
people who are working declines. This means the tax base
declines substantially. As our demand goes up, our tax base goes
down. We have more expensive technologies today than we had in
the past and that will be the case in the future.
The discrepancy between supply and demand will widen. Who will
be hurt but the poor and the middle class? The rich will always
have an opportunity to purchase their health care when they need
it. They will go south or will have connections so that they can
jump the queue.
Let us talk about facts and not rhetoric. We have to put
politics aside. For too long the health care issue has been used
as a political football by members on various sides. Hide behind
the Canada Health Act and we are looked upon as the great white
knight that will defend the health of Canadians. Try to propose
alternative solutions and we are labelled and branded as enemies
of the state. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Not a person in the House wants an American style health care
system. Everyone in the House is committed to a health care
system that enables all Canadians to have access to services when
they need them. The question is how do we do it. If we
recognize the facts I just mentioned then we must recognize that
we need more money in our system. As other members have
mentioned, we need to do other things, but the cold, hard reality
is that we need more funding. That funding will not come from
tax dollars that we will be able to raise now or in the future.
Therefore, how do we get the money?
I will speak personally. If we amend the Canada Health Act to
allow private services to strengthen the public system, not
detract from it or weaken it, we will be able to access some of
those resources. Canada is among a small family of countries
including Cuba and North Korea that do not allow private services
to occur by legislation? What a great group to be in.
If private services are used intelligently and have proper
restrictions placed on them to address the issue of manpower so
that medical personnel are obligated to work, say, a minimum of
40 hours a week in the public sector, Canadians will have access
to the medical personnel they require.
If we allow a private system to work in parallel and separate so
that there is no co-funding, we will ensure that people have a
choice. If people want, they can access the private system or
the public system. Ultimately the people on the private system
will take pressure off the public system and there will be more
money available within the public system on a per capita basis.
The most impoverished people in the country who do not have a
choice could then access the public system quicker than they
could today.
Is it unequal? Yes, it is. I would argue it is better to have
an unequal system that provides better access to health care for
all Canadians than we have today, particularly the poor and
middle classes. Then we would be on the right track. At the end
of the day the only reason to change anything would be to ensure
that the poor and middle classes have health care when they need
it. There would be a better health care and better access than we
have today. The government is certainly not doing that.
The government likes to trot out and say that it is defending
the status quo. If a person in the province of British Columbia
is injured while working he or she jumps to the top of the line
in the public system. That is not fair. Public money should not
be available so that a certain group, say the rich, have quicker
access than the poor. If they are to legislate this area, and I
personally advocate that they do, they have to ensure a complete
separation. Not a nickel of public money, not a nickel of
taxpayer money, would be used in the private system.
A private system must be completely separate from the public. If
we could do that we would get away from what has happened in
England and in the United States where people can queue jump
within a public system. I and every member of the House would
completely and utterly oppose that to the end of our days.
1530
We must also look at the issue of manpower. Within the nursing
profession there will be a lack of 112,000 nurses in the next 10
years. In my profession, the physician population, we have an
enormous lack of specialists, which will only get worse.
If one takes the case of nephrology, we will have an enormous
lack of nephrologists, that is, kidney specialists, and as our
population ages and as the case of end stage renal failure
expands, we will have a greater demand for those specialists.
Where will they come from? They will not materialize overnight.
With the cutbacks at the universities we are not able to keep up
with the physician or nursing populations that will be required
in the future.
A colleague from my party made the very cogent observation that
people are going south. Why are both nurses and doctors going
south? It is not necessarily because they want more money,
although certainly some of them do. It is because most of them
are sick and tired of having to tell patients “I'm sorry, your
surgery is cancelled today, it will be done in six months”.
No one wants to look into the eyes of a patient at 8 o'clock in
the morning and have to say that the operation cannot be done
that day because the OR has been shut down due to the hospital's
lack of money. It is crushing for the patient. It should never
ever happen in this country but it does.
We must talk about specific solutions to deal with this problem.
We cannot hide behind the rhetoric any longer.
One sidebar and one potential economic opportunity for the
solution I mentioned is that patients from the United States and
international patients will be able to come to Canada and receive
private sector health care. This would be an incredible boon in
terms of job creation and it would generate billions of dollars
to Canada's medical system. Yes, it would be a private system,
but billions of dollars in our country generates thousands of
jobs.
Why do we not allow that to happen? We do not allow it to
happen because of a philosophical myth that the government
continues to portray. If we do that we will be able to reverse
the brain drain that has been occurring for so long, keep our
medical professionals in the country, the doctors, nurses, techs
and others, and we will have an infusion of capital into our
medical system. If we do not do this, the situation we have
today in the country, which is far less than desirable, will only
get worse.
I ask members from all sides to please put aside the rhetoric.
It is no use trying to scare the public by saying that the
private sector is the demon that will destroy the public system.
It could if it was not dealt with properly but we can channel a
private system to ensure that it will strengthen the public
system not weaken it. It is not difficult to do and it can be
done.
If Tommy Douglas, a man I greatly respect, saw what we have done
to our health care system today he would be rolling in his grave.
He would be appalled because it was never designed to do what we
are asking it to do today. It is not and never was designed to
be all things to all people. It was designed to ensure that
Canadians got their essential health care when they needed it.
Today, when we are asking for many other things, such as
alternative medicine, home care, dental services and pharmacare,
things that will cost billions of dollars, where will we get the
money? The cold, hard reality is that we do not have it.
When the health minister starts trotting out solutions, such as
24-hour call lines and saying that geriatric patients are the
reason hospital beds are full, is, to put it kindly, naive. It
is true that there are some patients who occupy acute care beds.
It is true that the geriatric population puts a great strain on
the system.
However, the people waiting in the emergency departments for a
hospital bed are people who need ICU, people who need their
fractures treated, people who have medical problems that are
complex and simply cannot be treated at home.
1535
The health minister likes to say that with technologies getting
better, laparoscopic surgery patients will be able to go home
earlier. That is true if it is done properly. What is happening
now is patients are being discharged earlier and are sicker and
the responsibility for their care is placed on the shoulders of
families who do not have the wherewithal to treat them.
It is very disheartening to look into the eyes of an 80 year old
woman who is taking care of her 85 year old spouse who is sick,
sicker than she is I might add. Both are ill but she is forced
to deal with this. We need to look at other ways not only from
the funding perspective, which I focused this speech on, but also
into some other intelligent ways of dealing with various
problems.
One issue is to take a cold, hard look at administration. In
some hospitals administration has expanded dramatically. That
needs to be cut down. On the issue of the geriatric population,
I can only implore the health minister to look at the experience
of Saskatchewan. It has incorporated a very intelligent program,
an outreach program that has brought geriatric people with
medical problems into centres where they have had basically one
stop shopping. Many of their health care problems have been
treated and dealt with there so that they can go home. The
bottom line is a higher quality of health care for them, a higher
quality of life, which is the most important, and also the saving
of millions of dollars to the health care system. We need to
look at that.
It is disingenuous to claim that by defending the status quo and
by just saying that we need to make changes without expressing
what those are only enables this issue to go around in a big
circle once again. The only way we will solve this is for the
health minister to bring together his provincial counterparts and
say “We can't allow this to occur any longer. We've got to stop
the political nonsense and start putting patients first”.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, too often patients have
been put last on the list of priorities but politics have been
put as the prime priority because it has been far too attractive
to stand and defend the status quo and say limply that we want to
have changes without addressing it.
We need to look at experiences in other countries. If we look
at the European experience, they have allowed private services to
occur but also support the public system.
We also need to look at prevention. I proposed a national
headstart program in the House in 1997 which passed. It was on
models in Moncton; Ypsilanti, Michigan and in Hawaii. An
integrated approach to that would save billions of dollars and
save thousands of children's lives. It is a practical and
pragmatic approach. I know the Minister of Labour has been
leader in this in her town of Moncton. I commend her for the
outstanding work that she and her husband have done for many
years. However, this motion, although passed, has been moribund
because the government has failed to act.
I have said to the Minister of Health, the Minister of HRD and
the Minister of Justice that they should get together with their
provincial counterparts and look at all the programs they have
that deal with early childhood intervention. They should
rationalize these program, throw out what does not work, keep
what does and have a seamless integrated approach for our
children that starts at the prenatal stage and deals with the
medical community at time zero, deals with the mentorship program
that has worked in Hawaii and also the school system up to the
age of eight. If children grow up in a loving and secure
environment where their basic needs are met, they will have the
greatest chance of growing up to be productive and integrated
members of society.
This morning I filmed for my television program an outstanding
young woman who has a program called the Sage project here in
Ottawa. For roughly $7,000 she educated 550 immigrant children
who did not know how to speak English. Those children have all
gone on to post-secondary education and all of them have done
well. Some of these children were on the lowest socioeconomic
rung in our society.
Many of them come from impoverished backgrounds and abusive
situations, but the beauty of it is that she has focused on the
basic needs of children. By using volunteers, she has managed to
save the lives of 2,000 children in Ottawa by giving them a head
start. She has done this with no government money and only a few
thousand dollars. It is a model that can be used all across this
country.
1540
I implore people to contact my office or the young lady in
charge of the Sage project so they too can us that model. It is
an outstanding project that helps people learn English. It could
also be expanded to all children.
The best way to deal with prevention is to start even before a
woman becomes pregnant because then we could address issues such
as fetal alcohol syndrome, which, incidentally, is the leading
cause of preventable brain damage in our country today.
I have worked in jails, both as a guard and as a physician. I
can tell the House that the number of people in prison suffering
from FAS or FAE is epidemic. This is irreversible brain damage.
The average IQ of these people is 67. Their cognitive functions
are impaired and their learning functions are impaired. They
have emotional difficulties and cannot function properly in
school. They are ostracised. Many, unfortunately, turn to
crime. They are often in home situations that are less than
desirable. They have a one way ticket to a life that none of us
would wish upon anyone.
This is a preventable problem and I do not hear a peep from the
other side. I implore, plead and beg the ministers on the other
side to use the head start program, listen to their cabinet
members, look at the three models I have described, Moncton,
Ypsilanti and Hawaii, and work with members from across party
lines to do what they said they would do for kids. They should
use existing resources to employ the head start program. The
House has adopted it, supported it and passed it. They should do
it for our children and do it now.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I enjoy the debates of my colleagues, both in the
House and in the medical profession.
I would first like to say that patients come first as far as our
health care system is concerned, but profit, never. When the
member made the comment that not a penny was coming from the
public purse for private health care, I must remind him that when
a profit institution exists through our tax system, some money
does come from the public purse.
Second, he said that doctors have gone to the United States. I
must say that it has been my privilege to have trained in the
United States and decided to be a Canadian. Just because we have
an excellent medicare system it does mean that we have to settle
for the status quo? Of course not.
The Minister of Health has made it clear that we have to go
forward and institute meaningful reform. What he said earlier
this afternoon was that money alone, important as it is, was not
the only means for a solution. He said that we must have
leadership and that leadership means we must have ideas, vision,
planning and good management.
I was surprised that the member debating did not consider the
option in his debate that we can reform the health care system
and make it even better without creating a parallel private
system. For example, we can have a national health information
system. We can re-orient our practice guidelines.
I ask the member opposite if his party is opposed to the CHST
transfer. Is he committed to a full privatization if he believes
that this is so good?
1545
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, first of all we support
access of patients to health care.
The member mentioned that the minister talked about meaningful
change. He said we want to talk about reform, ideas, vision,
planning. What reform? What vision? What ideas? What
planning? I have not heard a single reasonable specific
suggestion from the minister ever on how we can ensure that
people will have access to health care when they need it.
Money is not all of the answer but it is part of it. When every
single hospital in Quebec is running a deficit, no one can tell
me that all of those hospitals are mismanaged. Those hospitals
and the nurses and doctors in them are trying to cobble together
a system for the people of Quebec but they do not have the
resources to do the job. No one can tell me that when I cannot
find a pillow for a patient with congestive heart failure in the
emergency department that it is good health care, or that money
does not make a difference. We need both. We need ideas for
reconstructing our health care system and we need the money to do
the job.
I will put it in a nutshell. The member knows full well what I
am talking about. There is the aging population, the more
expensive technology, the fact that we are asking for more, that
we have more demand, the fact that our tax base will shrink
because more people will be retired than working. Those are the
facts and that is where the squeeze exists.
We have to put patients first. Is an institute that puts
patients first and makes a profit a bad thing? Will we begrudge
that? That is not the issue. The issue is to make sure that no
Canadians will be deprived of health care because they do not
have enough money in their pockets. All of us would support that
to the end of our days.
What we do not support is the system right now where governments
prevent Canadians from getting access to health care because they
are withdrawing and withholding support because they do not have
the money. And because governments do not have the money,
patients are not getting access to health care.
In the 1960s people did not have access to health care because
they did not have money in their pockets. Now it is governments
that are depriving people of health care because they do not have
the money in their pockets. Surely there is a middle ground. I
have articulated it. We want to make sure that patients get
health care. I have shown them the way.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's remarks; it was a very
good speech. I want the member to comment on the ad hoc
approach, the undisciplined approach, the year by year, day by
day approach the government has taken in regard to health care
for seven years.
The minister this morning when he was in the House talked about
this new idea of co-operation and getting together with the
health ministers. The government has had seven years to do it. I
wonder why the government has waited so long to come up with this
so-called meaningful dialogue with the provinces. Obviously the
provinces are the primary care givers and an important part of
the equation.
I want to couple the lack of funding with the biggest issue
before the House in the last month or so, the difficulties within
HRDC. If we look at the estimates the Minister of Human
Resources Development has received an additional $1.3 billion
this year alone. Health care, supposedly the number one issue in
Canada, is receiving $2.5 billion over four years. The other
point is the minister of HRDC is receiving $200 million in
discretionary funding.
Why is there this disjointed approach within the present
government in terms of addressing the number one issue, yet
giving back money to a department that has clearly mismanaged
what it does have?
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has been
a very strong spokesperson for better health care for Canadians
for a very long time.
I cannot answer some of the questions and only the government
can answer some of them itself. We would all be very interested
in knowing the answers.
That the government has waited seven years is absolutely
outrageous. For reasons I do not understand, on the issue of
health care the government has been in intellectual purgatory for
a very long time.
That is a crying shame.
1550
My hon. colleague has worked with me on the issue of organ
donation. We gave the government a plan supported by our
respective parties that would save 175 lives a year. The plan is
there. What has the government done? Nothing. It has done
nothing on this issue. It is a motherhood issue and it has done
nothing on it which is absolutely bizarre.
On the issue of why the government has a piecemeal approach, I
want to reiterate that it has been far too attractive for the
government to hide behind the Canada Health Act and say, “We are
the defenders of health care. We are the defenders who make sure
that people have access to health care when they need it”. It
has been far too attractive for the government to do that because
that is what Canadians want. But it has been done at the expense
of invigorating and changing our health care system so that
Canadians do get access to health care, so that they are not
financially deprived.
The people who get hurt the most by the government's inaction
and posturing are the poor and middle class. That is a shame
because none of us in the House want to see that happen. Again
health care is a political football and it has been used to
political advantage instead of to the patient's advantage.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
enjoyed the debate on health care today. It is healthy for us to
get down to the nitty-gritty of what makes the health care system
work.
These days we are remembering the first anniversary of the death
of my aunt who was in a publicly funded hospital in Saskatchewan.
I wanted to say that because otherwise people would think that
this has to be Ralph Klein's fault. But she was in Saskatchewan,
the home of medicare. Basically she got terrible care. I hate
to say this but it is true. She fell out of bed after having a
stroke, not once, not twice, not three times but four times
because there was no staff available. When she rang for help no
one came. Finally she tried to get out of bed herself in order to
go to the washroom and she fell and injured herself terribly.
Finally her family said enough of this. They moved her from
that publicly funded hospital to a care centre that is operated
by a religious organization. She got excellent care there until
she passed away about a year ago.
No matter how we cut it, there is deep trouble in the public
health care system when for whatever reason, and whether it is
the federal or the provincial government that is involved, there
is not enough money to hire enough staff so that people who are
in hospital can be looked after in a reasonable fashion. It is
atrocious that the Liberal government with all its cuts to health
care has hampered the ability of provinces like Saskatchewan to
provide health care for its citizens.
Provinces simply do not have the money. They are still forced
to send taxpayers' dollars to Ottawa and they do not get them
back in proportion. I would like the hon. member to comment on
the actual funding part of it.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is the
government has ripped out $21 billion from transfers to the
provinces over the last seven years while it has been hammering
the provinces and continues to hammer the provinces to ensure
that people get the health care when they need it. That is the
cold-hearted reality.
As I said before, we cannot say to the taxpayers that more money
will be forthcoming in the future to cover all that we ask for.
Certainly the government should put back what it has taken away.
That is the minimum obligation. We will continue to fight the
fight to ensure that happens.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for
your information I will be sharing my time with the hon. member
from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik.
I am pleased to speak on the opposition motion, which I consider
very important. I too have concerns about access to necessary
health care, including emergency room services.
Crowded emergency rooms create numerous problems involving
various factors. As we know, there is a shortage of doctors
after hours, there are not enough beds available, and a good
number of the available beds are occupied by patients requiring
long term care because home care and community services do not
meet the needs of these people.
1555
Those are but a few of the reasons why emergency rooms may have
to turn back ambulances for example.
As the health minister already said, this long-standing situation
is unacceptable. That being said, we cannot logically deal with
the issue of short term hospital services without studying the
whole care program. We need an integrated health care system.
To increase accessibility, we have to change our practices and
our way of delivering health care services. However, we must
make appropriate changes that will ensure the future of our
medicare system.
As was mentioned by my colleague, the Minister of Health, two
elements are essential. First, a change is needed in the way
primary health care services are delivered in our communities.
Second, home and community care must be provided so as to ensure
that long term, rehabilitative and chronic care beds are
available as required, and to free beds for short term care in
hospitals.
Those are also the main priorities that health ministers have
indicated at their last annual meeting. We all agree on the need
to resolve those urgent concerns. Now we must take action. We
need a plan to implement these changes.
If primary health care were provided in a different way in
communities across the country, the problem of crowded emergency
rooms would be resolved.
Different models were proposed. However, if we do not change the
way primary health care services are provided, we will not meet
the needs of the communities. We will not succeed in alleviating
the pressure on the emergency rooms.
If we do not put the emphasis on prevention and health
promotion, we will not be able to take maximum advantage of the
skills of all the health care providers.
Therefore, we must agree first on the kind of reform needed to
provide integrated and full primary health care services. Then
we must develop outside hospitals ways of dealing with those who
need home and community care. I think there is a direct link
between the availability of home and community care and the
pressure on the hospitals.
If emergency wards are crowded, it is due in part to the
shortage of space caused by patients who cannot go home, but do
not have access to chronic, rehabilitative or long term care
beds. They are stuck there and they occupy the beds that those
on stretchers in the emergency wards could use. In this respect,
home care is one solution among others.
Through facilitation, co-ordination and co-operation, the
government will help the provinces and territories to implement a
clear and coherent vision of a renewed, integrated and
comprehensive health care system.
Let us talk about funding. As we know, the premiers expressed
the need for additional funding for the health care system and
will continue to do so. Last year the federal government invested
$11.5 billion in health care through the Canada health and social
transfer, or CHST. It was the most important one-time investment
ever made by this government.
Increased federal funding for health care was provided to the
provinces and territories to them alleviate immediate public
concerns, such as overcrowded emergency rooms, long waiting
lists and diagnostic services.
As we all know, budget 2000 increased by $2.5 billion over four
years CHST funding for health care and post-secondary education.
This increase raised the level of transfers to $15.5 billion for
2000-01 and subsequent years.
Through the increase in cash transfers, coupled with increasing
tax transfers, the CHST will reach an all time high of
$30.8 billion in 2000-01.
By 2003-04, total transfers to the CHST should reach
$32.7 billion.
Increased federal transfers will provide for a stable growth of
transfers and will ensure that high quality health care will be
available to anyone who needs it.
1600
We have fully restored what was commonly known as the health
component of the CHST to the levels existing before the spending
reduction period of the mid 1990s.
However, this is not only about money, it is about the way this
money is used. It is crucial to understand that the Canadian
medicare system will not be able to give Canadians an
appropriate access to quality health care in the years to come
if it is not renewed considerably through co-operation and
innovations. Status quo is not an option.
With respect to the management and delivery of health care
services, innovative approaches to renewing Canada's public
system of health care will be necessary.
Clearly, the challenge will be to find a way to accomplish this
while maintaining the fundamentals of medicare. Through the
health transition fund, the Government of Canada provides funds
for innovative pilot projects, based on four priorities,
including primary health care, home care and community care.
Many projects funded by the HTF look at ways to improve the use
of emergency rooms and access to alternative services.
HTF projects allow us to collect and analyse data on what works
and what does not. We must cope with change, learn from the past
and use the knowledge we gain from the pilot projects carried
out across our country.
Consequently, in order to settle the crisis in the emergency
rooms, we must start by dealing with primary health care, home
care and community health care.
To this end, the Minister of Health wrote to his provincial
counterparts, proposing a meeting in May to develop a plan that
would make these items a reality. The minister will certainly
keep you informed of any new development arising from this
meeting.
I repeat that the answer is not simply to increase funding. The
federal government, the provinces and the territories must work
together.
If we keep on doing what we have always done, we will continue
to achieve the same results, with emergency rooms turning away
ambulances and problems regarding accessibility to services.
We have the necessary resources, incentives and environment to
implement changes that will allow us to improve our health care
system and to provide Canadians with a comprehensive, integrated
health care system.
Canadians are proud of their health care system, which was built
over the years. We will protect it and make the changes
necessary to ensure that it remains a part of our Canadian
heritage.
[English]
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to my hon. colleague's comments regarding
our motion and the health care system.
He talked about the importance of pharmacare, home care and
community care. I would be the first to agree that those are
very important aspects of our health care system. I am wondering
if the hon. member has any comments as to why the government
would not have given something very concrete in providing
assistance or resources for those areas of concern.
I realize the budget has indicated that further down the road
there will be discussions with the provinces around some of these
issues. Knowing that the budget was coming up and knowing that
health care was the number one priority of Canadians right across
the country, I am wondering why we are looking further down the
road. Why could there not have been some leadership taken prior
to the budget to establish a very clear indication of the
resources that would be available to assist provinces with these
very important areas of concern?
It sounds as if this is an afterthought, something left hanging
out there, something that is up to the provinces to initiate. I
would suggest that the federal government has the responsibility
to show leadership and make sure there is a good national
standard of health care right across the country. Leadership
should be taken by the federal government to ensure that those
kinds of programs are put in place and are properly resourced.
1605
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the NDP member
for his question.
This is a very good question, but the member knows that this is
a funding issue and not a leadership issue. We know that there
is a provincial jurisdiction in that matter and that we cannot
move forward without a consensus of all provincial and federal
health ministers.
In Quebec, my home province, we are ahead of all other Canadian
provinces in that we have local community service centres or
CLSCs as well as home care.
We have thus taken a shift to ambulatory care, which is very
important and quite appreciated by the people. But, before
applying this to all provinces, there must be consensus and true
dialogue between the provincial ministers and the federal
minister.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to ask my colleague a question and make a comment.
In 1969, if hon. members will recall, the federal government's
share of the health care system costs in Canada was 50%. Today,
in the year 2000, its share has dropped to 15.3%, and that
includes the new investment of $2.5 billion. This is quite a
difference.
If we look at the American system, people have to pay to get
real health care. This is what Canadians want to avoid. Since
the the budget was brought down in the House on Monday,
Canadians from all across the country have expressed their
opinion and the premiers of all the provinces indicated their
disagreement with the way the federal government supports health
care.
For instance, if the federal government contributes only 15%,
the provinces have to kick in 85%. Can we imagine what that will
cost the provinces? If the federal government really wants to
preserve health care and avoid privatization, is my colleague
across the way ready to admit we are facing an urgent situation,
especially when we consider the reactions of the Premier of
Alberta, of Premier Mike Harris and of the Premier of
Newfoundland, Brian Tobin? He said “We will have to come to
Ottawa to get the money, because this makes no sense
whatsoever”.
Those were the words of an important member of the Liberal
Party, a man who is respected by the Prime Minister of Canada. He
supported the other premiers, who claim that there is not enough
money for health care. There is nothing more important than
health. Health is what matters. We need the federal government
and its 50:50 partnership.
Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
Acadie—Bathurst for his question. I totally agree that we should
not fall for what the Reform Party and the Progressive
Conservative Party propose on this issue. We have to maintain a
public system open to all Canadians.
As for the funding issue, I think we should question quite a
number of things, but the main issue is that we must put the
patient first. This is what is missing now. In Canada, there are
too many technocrats, who deal with all sorts of things, and the
patient is not the major concern.
When provinces get the opportunity to do whatever they can to
make the patient the top priority and when the medical and
nursing stakeholders return to the decision making circles
within provincial governments, then I am sure we will have the
necessary funds to provide adequate medical services to people.
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
let me set the record straight as to the level of priority our
government places on health care, particularly with regard to
federal transfers to the provinces and territories.
On February 18, for the fourth consecutive year, our government
chose to increase transfers to the provinces and territories
through the Canada health and social transfer.
In the 2000 budget, we announced the transfer of a further $2.5
billion to the provinces and territories to be used over four
years for post-secondary education and health care.
The $2.5 billion is in addition to the greatest investment in
the history of our government that was announced in the 1999
budget, an investment of $11.5 billion for health care alone.
1610
The 2000 federal budget proves once again that the health of
Canadians and the future of their health care system are among
the federal government's top priorities.
The Canada health and social transfer is the most important
federal transfer to the provinces. It provides cash transfers
and tax points to the provinces and territories to support
health care, post-secondary education, social services and
welfare programs.
The Canada health and social transfer is a block funding
mechanism.
It allows provinces and territories to grant funds to social
programs according to priorities.
Why am I taking part in this debate on the issue of transfers?
Because these last few weeks in my region,
Abitibi-Témiscamingue, the members of the Parti Quebecois have
often talked about the issue of federal transfers, and I wish to
present a summary of what was said.
In 2000-01, the Canada health and social transfer to provinces
and territories will reach a new height, $31 billion. Of this,
there will be $15.3 billion in tax points and $15.5 in cash
transfers.
A transfer of tax points is an important part of the ongoing
support provided by the federal government to provincial and
territorial social programs.
A tax point transfer occurs when the federal government reduces
its tax rate and allows the provinces to raise their tax rate by
an equivalent amount. With such a measure, the provinces can get
more revenues without increasing the total tax burden of
Canadians.
By next year, CHST transfers to provinces and territories will
be $960 per person and, by 2003-04, $985.
My friends of the Parti Quebecois in Abitibi-Témiscamingue should
know that, under the CHST, the Government of Quebec will obtain
$992 per person in 1999-00, $1,026 in 2000-01, $1,011 in 2001-02,
$1,024 in 2002-03 and $1,038 in 2003-04.
However, as the government has said many times, we cannot stop
there. The challenge facing the health care sector does not
involve only money, it primarily involves changes to the health
system.
In its last throne speech, the government reaffirmed its
commitment to move forward with its provincial and territorial
partners and with the health care sector on common priorities.
Those priorities include testing of innovations in integrated
delivery of services in areas such as home care and drug
insurance, making sure that citizens from every region of
Canada, and rural areas in particular, have improved access
through a modern health information system to up-to-date
information on health issues and treatment options, to enable
them to make better informed choices, and protecting the health
of Canadians by strengthening the Canadian food safety program.
The challenge for the government is to identify what changes are
required and how the various governments can co-operate to meet
the health needs of Canadians now and in the future.
The federal government took the commitment to protect the five
tenets of health care as stated in the Canada Health Act. These
are: public administration, comprehensiveness, universality,
portability and accessibility.
They reflect the will to give all Canadians reasonable access to
insured hospital and medical services in accordance with the
prepayment formula and under the same conditions everywhere.
This past year, the health ministers of Quebec and the other
provinces made substantial progress in identifying what must be
done to meet the short and long term health needs of Canadians.
They acknowledged unanimously that co-operation was the best way
of ensuring Canadians of access to quality care and to the
information required to make informed decisions for enhanced
health and well-being.
1615
We realize that dollars and cents are not enough. There must be
investment in health care in order to have an accurate idea of
the quality of care provided and the extent to which the system
yields good results as far as health is concerned.
Quality of care is not merely a matter of funding.
Consideration must also be given to the efficiency and
appropriateness of care, treatment and services delivered to the
Canadian people, and the integration of those services.
The federal, provincial and territorial governments cannot
afford to use our limited resources for health care in an
inefficient manner.
That is why the federal government is vigorously in favour of
striking a partnership for reforming and renewing the health
system.
The provincial and territorial ministers of health have been
invited to meet together in May of 2000 to discuss three key
issues that must be settled in order to fully resolve the
recurring problems in the system and to restore public
confidence in health insurance.
The first issue is this: to change the way primary care is
delivered, in order to improve access and to adapt human
resource-related policies in order to facilitate change.
The second: to enhance home and community care and to examine
national objectives in order to integrate these types of care
into the health system.
The third one: to strengthen co-operation between the federal
government, the provinces and the territories in accounting for
the system's performance for the Canadian public, in releasing
information on the results obtained and in establishing the
bases for public debate on the standards for health care.
As the 1999 and 2000 budgets have shown, the federal government
recognizes that stable and predictable federal funding in the
health sector is important to ensure the provinces and
territories can meet the immediate needs of their residents and
plan for the future.
The Canada health and social transfer provides this stability
and predictability by guaranteeing an annual financial transfer
of $15.5 billion starting in 2000-01 and an overall transfer that
will increase to nearly $33 billion in 2003-04.
It is time the governments stopped debating about levels of
funding of six or seven years ago and began facing challenges of
the Canadian health care system before them today.
The federal government, like the provincial and territorial
governments, recognizes that in the future decisions on
investments in health care will have to be based on a plan
reflecting this desire of Canadians, that the approach to health
care will have to be better integrated, new resources will have
to be used to meet this need of Canadians, which is to have a
quality system.
We have to work together to achieve this shared objective of
revitalizing our health care system so it will provide
accessible, viable and high quality health care to all
Canadians.
In closing, to the nurses, hospital staffs in Canada and to all
the doctors who, today, are caring for Canadians, I say thank
you for your support.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened to
the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik talk about the health
care system, about the billions and billions of dollars that the
federal Liberal government has put into health.
I have some more percentages. I do not know whether my
colleague remembers that, in 1969, when the Liberal government
was in power—the governments that followed did the same thing—it
began to make cuts, with the result that transfers to the
provinces are now 15% of what they were.
Would the member agree with me that today in Canada our children
or our parents have to wait for treatment in hospital corridors,
that people have to wait six months for cancer treatment or for
a heart operation?
One of my sisters-in-law was operated on for cancer in Quebec City
in January.
She had to go to Augusta in the United States for her
treatments. She had to stay five weeks and the treatments cost
Canada or Quebec $18,5000. Here in Canada we are not even
capable of treating our own citizens. I would like to know
where the member stands on this.
Would he agree that the federal government should change its
approach to provincial transfer payments so that our parents and
our children do not find themselves stuck in hospital corridors
waiting for care?
Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, the NDP member told us about 1969
and made reference to the province of Quebec. He told us about
how his sister-in-law had to go to the United States for an
operation.
1620
In 1994 Quebecers paid $28 billion in taxes to the federal
government, which then gave back between $34 billion and $35
billion to the province. Quebec always stood to gain.
It is deplorable to see patients in hospital corridors and
people being transferred to the United States. But we learned
one thing yesterday: it is not strictly a matter of money.
The fact is that Quebec left money dormant in the
Toronto-Dominion Bank, in Toronto. Meanwhile, the Quebec minister
of health, Pauline Marois, was making every attempt to get money
in February of last year. There was none for the hon. member's
sister-in-law. The money was dormant in Toronto and people were
not receiving the treatments they need. This was dereliction of
duty on the part of the separatist government in Quebec.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is easy to
assess the situation in Quebec when we are not there to look at
the finances, but the problem is the same for Quebec and the
other provinces. Quebec is not the only one in that situation.
There is money in trusts and there are funds for ad hoc needs,
but this does not allow the provinces to set up a longer term
management structure.
In Quebec, some money is in trust and some is in the Quebec
government's overall budget. The Minister of Finance decided to
use the surplus money, not the money in trust, because that
money will be needed next year to meet the 4% annual budget
increase for health.
Before making such comments, the member should look at what the
federal government has done to the provinces. The Liberals may
boast about the $2.5 billion over four years, but this is not
what the provinces need to meet the requirements relating to the
restructuring of our health system.
Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, one day people will talk about
the Quebec minister of finance and his statement that “the
health problem is not a matter of money”. That is what Mr.
Landry said yesterday.
The hon. member has referred to trust funds. The amount was put
in trust by the federal government, but Quebec could have
immediate transferred that amount of $842 million for the care of
all those people lined up in hospital corridors or on waiting
lists, instead of sending them to the States. That is quite a
substantial amount, $842 million, not to mention the interest.
One has to remember the interest. We learned this last evening,
12 months after the federal government gave the money in question
to the province of Quebec. And they talk of shortages.
Let us not just talk about trusts. Let us talk about the region
of Abitibi—Témiscamingue.
I have an excerpt here from a daily newspaper in the
Vallée-de-l'Or region, the Parlemenu. The article by Denis
LaBrecque addresses the shortage of physicians in remote areas.
The region is far from Quebec City and far from Ottawa, and
there is a shortage of doctors. In part, the article reads as
follows:
Representatives of the health, education and business sectors
met together in Val-d'Or Tuesday evening to address the
situation. At the same time, they reviewed all of the
initiatives taken to date in an attempt to remedy the situation,
none of them as yet successfully.
Solutions must be sought together. With all the political
parties and all the provincial governments, new approaches must
be found.
Let us move on this, and perhaps we will manage to improve
things for those who are sick.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to take part in this debate, because I feel particularly
concerned as a Bloc Quebecois member.
Today, we are debating a motion from the NDP asking that
adequate moneys be put back into health to meet the various
expectations in that sector.
A number of members addressed this issue, including some who are
doctors by training.
1625
Depending on which party we represent, we have a different
reading of the situation. The Liberal Party—a fellow member who
is a doctor addressed the issue—tends to put the blame on public
servants, on those who manage health services.
Personally, I would rather agree with the opposition's reading
of the health care situation. Obviously, this view does not
agree with that of the Liberal Party. Members from opposition
parties who have some experience in the health sector told us
that there is also a serious funding problem.
This does not mean there is no need to review our ways of doing
things, to adjust. We know that several factors are disrupting
the traditional ways of doing things in the health sector.
I will talk about this issue, before dealing with our minor
disagreement with a Liberal member about the $841 million in
trust that were given by the Liberal government and that were
supposed to be spent within three years. We could ask why the
Liberal government is not putting back into the Canada social
transfer moneys that come back year after year, to meet regular
expenditures.
These are non recurrent amounts and the provinces probably have
a hard time anticipating the necessary margins to deal with very
urgent problems.
The dynamic in the health care sector in Canada and particularly
in Quebec is such that a greater adjustment will be required for
the ageing population. Fortunately for Quebec, although
unfortunately in other ways, we have the lowest infant mortality
rate of all Canadian provinces. That having been said, funding
is needed so that we can meet the need for more health services.
For example, in Quebec the mortality rate is 4.6% for every
1,000 births while in Canada it is 5.6% or 5.7%. Earlier, I was
a bit insulted to hear the Liberal member say that in Canada,
and in Quebec in particular, they are doing a poor job of
managing their budgets, that they are not spending them on the
right services and that our health care system is not effective
enough.
I would qualify this.
If, for instance, our infant mortality rate is lower than the
rest of Canada's, this means that our health care services—we
must not be too partisan—generally meet the population's needs.
For five years now, there have been cuts to the system that have
gone a long way towards eliminating the deficit. We know that
public finances are in very, very good shape in Canada. The
surplus was originally estimated at $95 billion, and is now
estimated at $137 billion. Some put it at around $167 billion.
With such a large surplus, this government could have committed
a much larger amount. But it announced $2.5 billion, again in a
trust, that the provinces will be able to spend over a four-year
period.
It may well have thought this was enough but I think that the
needs of the health care system are much more pressing than the
government wants to admit.
The result is increasing pressure on demand. We know that there
have been demographic changes, technological developments and
the emergence of new needs. I will go into this a bit later on.
1630
Major changes have been made to the organization of social and
health care services in a very short period. Quebec had no
choice. It was already behind other countries and some
provinces.
Significant gains were made in the move to ambulatory care and
in the increased efficiency of the health care network.
However, there are weak spots and sectors to be consolidated,
waiting lists for surgery, emergencies to be recognized, human
resources to be shouldered and equipment to be replaced. All of
this brings with it the challenges of rectifying the situation
in the health care sector.
The network's financial situation must also be rectified and its
functioning improved. We agree on that.
However, the federal government has to help with financial
support for the provinces.
Looking at the course of the health care system, we see that,
between 1975 and 1994, public spending often grew faster than
did the public purse. Since 1994, the Government of Quebec has
taken major steps to balance the budget.
Health care spending increases by 4% annually. In the coming
years, we will have to come to terms with this urgency to meet
needs.
On the subject of the trust fund in Toronto, a certain
perspective is required on the demands that will be made in the
coming years, and this involves a variety of reasons, which I
can give later. The population is ageing and this will lead to
increased demand in various areas of health care.
The shift to ambulatory care means moving some medical
procedures out of hospitals. We know we have to learn how to
better deal with the new demands on the health care system. We
have to increase the proportion of actual day surgery as
compared to potential day surgery from 72% to 88%, bring down
the hospitalization rate for surgery from 32.8 to 23.9 per
1,000, and lower the total number of hospitalizations by 11.5%.
This is the approach we have to follow with regard to the shift
to ambulatory care.
The average hospital stay needs to be shortened. In medicine, it
should be 7.5 days instead of 8.8, and in surgery, 8.2 instead
of 8.7.
There is still room for improvement to better deal with these
new demands and meet the challenges of the shift to ambulatory
care.
From a financial point of view, since 1994-1995, the Quebec
government has been trying to put a lid on its expenses while
still doing a good job, and it has worked. I will not get into
the details of the cases reported on a daily basis by the papers
over the last couple of years. I believe the Quebec government
is trying hard to bring some measure of efficiency to the health
care system while giving it the tools necessary to respond
quickly and appropriately to health care needs.
Even in the institutions experiencing financial difficulties,
there has been a significant effort to streamline operations.
However, it has not been enough to offset the impact of the
upward pressure on costs.
We are faced with dealing with new technology. We are faced with
dealing with a more expensive approach to care than 20 years
ago.
The shift to ambulatory care has allowed the streamlining of the
system, but other factors are putting upward pressures on
expenses, namely demographic changes, the development of new
technologies, and new needs.
1635
It is said that the number of people over the age of 65 will be
60% higher in 2011 than it was in 1991, and the increase will be
even greater for the 85-plus age group. In 2011, there will be
84% more people aged 85. In 2030, 25% of Quebecers will be over
the age of 65.
This means that the changes that have just been made in the
health system are intended precisely to respond to the fact that
the population of Quebec is ageing more rapidly than elsewhere
in Canada and other countries as well.
I have a table here which illustrates the fact that it will take
35 years for the percentage of the Quebec population aged 65 or
over to rise from 12% to 24%.
It shows 35 years for Quebec to reach that level; Canada, 45;
Germany, 65; France, 70 and England, 75. There were many
children born at a certain time in our history. A number of my
colleagues are baby-boomers, and they will reach the honourable
age of 60 or 65 in about another ten years and be users of the
health system.
The population of Quebec is ageing at an amazing rate. This
must be addressed. A strategy is needed for the approach to
health care, but money is needed as well, in order to support
all the new technologies and all the new methodologies. It is
said that the ageing of the population of Quebec will be twice
that of the European countries.
The health system is experiencing the pressures of demographic
change. I will explain the implications of this.
In the emergency departments, for example, there were 50,000
more people lying on stretchers in 1998 and 1999 than there were
in 1994 and 1995.
Of these, 56% were age 75 and older. The reason for
overcrowding in emergency rooms is that more people have been
going there since 1994.
In radiation oncology, needs are increasing rapidly,
particularly for people over 50. The first baby boomers have
already reached that age. New cases of cancer are increasing at
the rate of 3% a year. We must be able to respond to this
increase.
The same is true in cardiology. Needs are increasing,
particularly from age 50 on. More coronary bypasses are being
performed on seniors. The number of heart surgeries is
increasing by 3.6% a year and there has been a 260% increase in
angioplasties in the last ten years.
In other specialties, the fact that people are living longer and
that there is an increase in the number of very elderly people
is adding to needs.
The number of cataract surgeries has increased by 8% in the last
three years, and 30% in the last two.
There is an increasing need in various specialties to cope with
all those who need treatment and who require new technologies,
more doctors, and more people who are able to respond adequately
to all these emergencies.
There was a boom in the 1980s, particularly with respect to
medical technologies, drugs and information. For example,
medical imaging technologies now allow speedier and more
effective intervention but cost more. The Liberal member who
says that we are not capable of spending money effectively has a
short term view of what is going on in the health care sector.
1640
She really does not know what is going on. She really must not
be familiar with the new dynamics, the new pressures resulting
from demographic change or the system's difficulties in meeting
these needs.
Spending on medication can be said to have increased, and Quebec
is a leader in this area with a drug plan. There are also new
requirements in the field of health, new problems have arisen,
such as AIDS, Alzheimer's disease and related illnesses. In
1999, there were 66,183 such cases, and today there are 103,783.
Some people require more services in their community.
In looking at the annual 4% increase in spending in the health
sector, we must also look at all the new dynamics. We cannot
say it is the fault of the provinces for having badly managed
health services. We must take a new tack in dealing with this.
I do not think anyone is acting in bad faith. There are new
dynamics, perhaps they were unforeseen, but they must be dealt
with in the coming years. With the money we get from the federal
government, more has to be done with less.
The Canada social transfer was higher in 1993 than it is today.
When we are told the figure will be $2.4 billion compared with
what we were given prior to 1993, when there were fewer
requirements, I can understand why everything is going awry. I
can understand as well that the problem does not lie in Quebec
alone. It is present in other provinces.
We heard members of the NDP, the Reform Party and the
Progressive Conservative Party from all regions of Canada
describe the same problem. Therefore, I am a little disappointed
to hear overblown speeches that are disconnected from the
reality of everyday life, this for the sole purpose of boasting
about giving $2.4 billion, again in a trust.
A trust is not what will enable us to implement long term
strategies to determine how much hospitals can spend on supplies
and on staff.
We are certainly prepared to look at the situation, but we still
need money to support those who work in the health sector. We
hear that some people feel exhausted and belittled. I think that
even nowadays the pay, the work and the achievements of these
people should make them feel appreciated.
A decent salary allows a person to take a vacation and to feed
his or her children.
We should look at the health sector as a whole and not use a
piecemeal approach to avoid doing our duty. If we ask a lot from
the federal government, it is because we give it billions of
dollars in taxes, $31 billion to be precise.
I would have a lot more to add, but I will conclude by saying
that the way the government intends to fund the Canada social
transfer, that is in an ad hoc fashion, through trusts, will not
allow the provinces to plan in the long term and to meet long
term needs in the years to come.
I spoke about our ageing population. We need to pay attention to
this phenomenon, as we may be the next ones to ask for adequate
care, because of health problems.
1645
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to
congratulate my colleague from Quebec for her eloquence. I
thought her speech was just brilliant. However, I also heard
brilliant but demagogic speeches from certain Liberal members,
in particular with regard to the $842 million being mismanaged.
I heard my colleague say, at the beginning of her speech, that
she would get back to that issue, but I suppose she got carried
away and did not have time to do so.
I want to give her the opportunity to give us and particularly
to give our colleagues opposite an explanation about the
headlines which we saw in the newspapers today and which have
been used extensively by our political opponents to try to show
us once again that we are incapable of good management.
I ask my colleague to make a brief comment on that.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
giving me extra time to explain what a malicious deed the
setting up of the trust by the government really was.
We know that the federal government invested $3.5 billion in the
last budget and gave the provinces the right to spend this over
the following three years.
The governments also planned to inject some funds into the
financial area, and Quebec had decided on a figure of $2 billion
in investments. Initially, its plan was for $1.7 billion, plus
an additional $300 million for health during fiscal 1999-2000 and
2000-2001.
The Government of Quebec made that investment. Instead of taking
the $841 million from the fund—knowing that it will need this
money for the next budget, investment in health being far from
over, for all the reasons I have given—the Government of Quebec
is going to have a surplus because the government made that
investment. The Government of Quebec is going to draw upon the
surplus instead of the trust fund, because what is in that fund
will be needed for a long term health investment strategy.
I am not worried about how the Government of Quebec is going to
spend that trust money. We know it will go for health, but a
strategy is needed, and that is what the Government of Quebec is
going to address.
By taking the $841 million from the budget surplus, the
Government of Quebec has made health a priority, rather than
setting having a budget surplus as its priority, as this
government has.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it was
with great interest and attention that I listened to my
colleague, the member for Québec.
I wish all government members had been present to hear what is
going on in the health care sector, not just in Quebec, but
throughout Canada. I think we have just been given an accurate
picture of what is going on throughout Canada, and the member
for Québec has just outlined for us the long-term needs of the
provinces and of Quebec.
I would like to ask my colleague whether she thinks that this
government needs to interfere so blatantly in health care with
the Canada social transfer. That was what it wanted to do with
the CHST, but the Government of Quebec refused to go along. I
would like her to tell us about Quebec's real concerns in the
health care sector.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that
the Canada social transfer represents an annual shortfall of
$1.7 billion. When the government announces that the provinces
will be getting back $2.5 billion over four years, that leaves
Quebec terribly short.
The Canada social transfer is $1.7 billion, but $875 million go to
health, $375 million to education and $450 million to social
assistance. Do people realize what the loss of $875 million
means in practical terms?
It means 3,000 doctors and 5,000 nurses. The $375 million would
hire 5,800 university professors and there would be another
$325 million for income security for those on social assistance.
1650
The provinces are being given a difficult choice. This is
terrible and has got to stop. I hope that the meeting of the
health ministers will lead to something, that this government
will be made to understand that it is up to the provinces to
meet the public's pressing demands. It is not up to the federal
government to take over from the provinces.
If there had been enough money, if the government had done its
homework, if $18.8 billion had been made available—the amount the
provinces are entitled to expect in order to meet health care
needs—I could perhaps say the provinces had not done their
homework and had mismanaged their budget. Instead of increasing
this $18.8 billion, what has the government been doing? It has
been cutting it back.
To date, $31 billion has been taken away from the education,
health care and social assistance network.
It is high time the public understood and the government stopped
blaming the provinces.
I can speak for Quebec, while you may be able to speak for your
region, Mr. Speaker. Honestly, I think that the Government of
Quebec is trying to find practical and valid solutions. It can
meet the needs of its people. We do not need the federal
government, and certainly not the members on the government
side, to give us any lessons.
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with the member for Broadview—Greenwood.
I am very happy to engage in this debate dealing with health
care spending by the federal government and the provinces. It
seems to me that the problem is the whole issue of
accountability. To the people who are in their living rooms
watching this debate and who are concerned about the health care
issue, it is appropriate for us to ask not about whether it is
new money we need, but how the money was spent in the past. We
can judge the sincerity of secondary levels of governments by how
they are spending the actual moneys we transfer to them.
A number of people have mentioned the report on what the
province of Quebec did with some of its money. It has taken it
out of the account we provided last year and invested $841
million in Quebec savings bonds and Hydro Quebec. It has earned
something like $16 million in interest. The point is the money
was not spent on health care.
We have had a lot of complaints from the province of Ontario,
and Mr. Harris in particular, that it needs more money because
the money provided in the last federal budget was not adequate.
Ontario is pounding on the table and is really upset because it
did not get enough money. It is very appropriate that we sit
down and ask what the province of Ontario did with the money it
already had.
I am drawing my information not from my notes but from the
Ontario government's budget book, pages 38 and 55 and from its
third quarter fiscal results dated February 4, 2000. Looking
through those pages I see that of the $3.5 billion allocation
that was made in fiscal year 1999-2000, the province of Ontario's
share was $1.323 billion. I also see in the same books that the
province of Ontario drew down $755 million on that account. For
those people who are watching the debate, it is very hard to
relate billions and millions when most of us have a hard time
finding $25 to put some gas in our tank. It does not buy very
much today.
Getting back to the equation, $1.323 billion was transferred to
Ontario and it drew down $755 million, which left a balance of
$568 million.
Of the money we gave it last year, $568 million has remained
unspent.
1655
I do not know if, like the province of Quebec, Ontario has
invested it in securities and is earning interest on it. The
fact is that money is still sitting there. It has not spent it at
all. The important part is $755 million went into the Ontario
government coffers.
In addition to the $755 million of new money, we had increased
our normal allotment under the CHST by $190 million to the
province of Ontario. To get all my figures together, $190
million plus the $755 million comes to $945 million. That is
$945 million of new money that went to the province of Ontario in
fiscal year 1999-2000.
The question is what did the province of Ontario do with this
new money? The opposition party is saying it wants more money
but what did Ontario do with the money it received?
I have looked through the pages of the Ontario government
expenditures. What have I discovered? I have discovered that the
new spending on health care for the province of Ontario for the
1999-2000 fiscal year was $320 million.
Think about that. The federal government put the money in a
trust account. Ontario took $755 million out of the trust
account. We gave Ontario another $190 million of new money. It
had $945 million of new money. How much new money did it spend
on health care? Only $320 million. The difference is $625
million that the federal government transferred to the province
of Ontario that it did not spend on health care.
When thinking of a trust account, what is the concept of trust?
We put money in trust and say, “We put it in trust for you and
we trust you as a provincial government to spend it on your
people and spend it for its original intention which is health
care”. What did the province of Ontario do? Ontario withdrew
this money in trust, $755 million, added it to another $190
million in new money that we gave, and only spent $320 million in
new dollars.
There is $625 million missing, $625 million of Canadian
taxpayers' money that was transferred to the province of Ontario
to undertake new spending in health care that never happened.
We talk about accountability in government. This is the problem
with this whole debate. People blame us for the health care
system but we do not control how the money is being spent. This
is a clear example. Mr. Harris has the audacity to shout all
over the land today, “We need more money. We did not get enough
money from you guys”, when in fact the province of Ontario got
$625 million new dollars which it stuck in its back pocket and
never spent on the people of Ontario.
If that were not enough, in its fiscal estimates the province of
Ontario now anticipates an additional $1 billion surplus this
fiscal year. Is that not an amazing thing. There is $625
million seemingly missing and the province of Ontario now has a
$1 billion surplus, a surplus $1 billion larger than it was going
to have in the first place. What did the province of Ontario do
with this money? I do not know.
We do know the province of Ontario spent $4.7 billion in tax
cuts. Perhaps that is what the Ontario government did with it.
We know that it has done all kinds of other spending. Worse than
that we know it also raised its deficit by $20 billion. Those
people in Ontario are spending money like drunken sailors, but it
is not going into the health care system.
1700
Members of the opposition have been saying that only 3 cents
went to health care.
An hon. member: Two cents.
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Two cents. Should we give the
province of Ontario or the province of Quebec another 2 cents
when that has been the track record? Ontario took $625 million
of our money, said it was going to spend it on health care and
did not spend it at all.
It took money out of a trust account, which was being held in
trust for the people of Ontario, and then did not spend it on
them. For all the people who are lined up in the wards, and for
all the people who are having trouble with health care in
Ontario, and in Quebec, ask where the $625 million went.
Maybe that is a better answer than blaming the federal
government, because we gave it to them. We spent it on the
province of Ontario, but the province of Ontario did not spend it
on the people. It did not spend it on the sick. It did not
spend it on those people who are being threatened on a daily
basis by disease. It did not spend it on the frail. It did not
spend it on the aging. I do not know what the province spent it
on. It spent it on its rich friends, I guess, or the $4.7
billion in tax cuts, but it did not spend it on the province of
Ontario.
We are not going to give the province any more money. We should
not have given it that money, if that is the way it spends. We
need an accountability system in the country which will tell us
where the money has been spent and will ensure that it goes to
the people. Do not tell me it is about more money.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
somewhat hypocritical to have members of the governing side talk
about the accountability of taxpayer dollars after what we have
been listening to for the last number of weeks concerning the
human resources department.
I do not think there is any question that if taxpayer dollars
for health care are not going to health care, the government
should be doing something about it. There is no question.
If the government knows that is happening and it is not doing
anything about it, then it is at fault because that money should
be going to health care. There is absolutely no question.
It is along the same lines as the EI dollars, the EI premiums
that come in to give employment insurance benefits to the workers
in Canada, for jobs and training throughout Canada, and to assist
employers. What did the government do with that money? It used
it to create a surplus. It sounds an awful lot like the member's
version of Mike Harris.
What does he have to say about that?
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, looking at the motion
which is before us today, members of the NDP are co-conspirators
with the Harris government because they have come to this place
and said “Give us more money. Mr. Harris wants more money.
Give us more money”.
They are the co-conspirators with the likes of Mr. Harris and
Mr. Klein, who have no intention of spending it on the people.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, now I
have seen it all in this House.
The Liberals have the gall to pass judgment on the way the
provinces are managed. If the member wants to pass judgment on a
province's administration, he should run for election in that
particular province. I have always respected other levels of
government. If I were him, I would be ashamed of what he just
did.
Is he not ashamed of what his government has been doing since
1993-94, when it cut health, social and education transfer
payments to the provinces by $38.7 billion? This has meant a
shortfall of $30.5 billion for all the provinces since 1993.
It is $11.1 billion in Quebec and $10.5 billion in Ontario.
I think the member would be well advised to clean up his own
backyard before he tries to clean others.
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, I think the essence of
that question was that I should be ashamed because I am standing
here trying to prevent taxpayers' money from being misspent. I
am not ashamed at all. I will defend the taxpayers of the
province of Quebec if I have to. The finance minister for Quebec
is saying “It is not about money. It is not about spending
money. We cannot find the doctors, so we are not going to spend
the money anyway”.
Am I ashamed of defending the taxpayers of Quebec? Not on your
life.
1705
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity to participate in
this debate. I have always held a very high level of respect for
the New Democratic Party and its commitment to this issue, but
the notion that it would, without any discussion or exchange of
ideas, want an immediate, substantial and sustained increase in
cash transfers to the provinces absolutely boggles my mind.
An hon. member: Do you have another idea over there?
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: The member for Saint John is another
member for whom I have immense respect, but I say to the members
opposite that this is not just about sending money to the
provinces.
In my community, in downtown Toronto, a young man died in an
ambulance because he could not get admittance to a hospital.
When my constituents listen to us talk, I think most of them
would be lost in all of these numbers: billions here, hundreds
of millions there.
In no way, shape or form am I trying to put down my constituents
or members, but I think we are going at this issue the wrong way.
The member for Durham talked about this the other day. We should
be talking about re-engineering the health care system. We
should be going back to Emmett Hall's report to give our whole
system a health check. I have not heard one speech in the House
today which mentioned health prevention. How much emphasis do we
put on health prevention in the debate today?
I will give a couple of specific examples. A year and a half
ago, in our sport committee where we were looking at the
importance of having a physically active nation, we were told
that men and women should spend at least half an hour a day doing
some physical exercise. The best doctors in our country appeared
before us. Those surgeons had studies that were ratified not
only by our best, but by the best in the world, which stated that
if we could increase Canadians' commitment to physical activity
an additional 10% we could put downward pressure on health care
costs within 18 months to the tune of $5 billion annually.
As a government we have a responsibility to mobilize the people
of the nation to become more responsible toward themselves and to
become more physically active. Again I will go back to my
colleague from Durham. This is not just about giving Premier
Harris or Premier Tobin blank cheques. It is not about that.
I would not give anybody a blank cheque in this area because it
would delay the process of re-engineering the system. We need to
go back to Emmett Hall's report, take some of those principles
and reapply them.
What about the whole realm of alternative medicine? What about
mental health? What about the environment?
When will we talk not only about sending cheques here or sending
billions there? When will we have a debate on the creative
things we can do as members of parliament, as the House of
Commons of Canada, which we can bring to the ministers of health
and the premiers of the provinces?
We all have a part to play. I do not think we are talking about
it enough in the House. All we want to talk about is sending
cheques here and there. Is that what the House of Commons has
become, a cheque writing machine?
1710
We have many intelligent men and women in the House and we
should be using our brains to put forward creative ideas. Where
are the creative ideas on fixing the health care system? To
quote my colleague from Durham, we should be re-engineering the
system. Is there anyone who disagrees that we have to
re-engineer the system?
We have heard the notion of Premier Klein wanting to privatize
the system. Let me tell my colleague from Cape Breton that with
all of the eye surgery that was done in the province of Alberta,
all the analyses show that private clinics cost more. One of the
things that makes this country great is the fact that everybody
has access to the health care system. That is one of our
trademarks as a nation.
The notion that we would create an environment where premiers
would be allowed to experiment with private health care boggles
my mind. NDP members would give blank cheques to Premier Harris
and let—
An hon. member: No, 50:50.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: That is what the motion says. The
motion says, announcing within one week of the passage of the
motion a substantial and sustained increase in cash transfers.
The NDP did not even put an amount on it. It did not put an
amount on what it would give. I would not give my dear friend
Brian Tobin a blank cheque.
Let us stop talking about money and start talking about creative
ideas. What about mobilizing people to become more physically
active? What is wrong with that?
I say sincerely that I do not believe there is a single member
of parliament who wants to be sitting here with a fragile health
care system, and we all admit it is fragile.
An hon. member: It is your fault.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Members of the New Democratic Party
point to our Minister of Health and ask for lump sum transfers of
money to the provinces, but that is not the right way. I think
the Minister of Health has it right. He has said that he will
sit down with the provincial ministers to negotiate a plan.
This is not a partisan issue. I would appeal to all members to
approach their premiers and let us cause them to think creatively
on how we can bring down health care costs. Let us get into the
prevention business. Anybody can write a cheque.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Unfortunately, the time for
questions and comments has expired.
[English]
It being 5.15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings
and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the
business of supply.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
1715
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will pleased say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1745
[Translation]
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Brien
|
Canuel
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Davies
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gruending
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Loubier
| Mancini
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Nystrom
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Wasylycia - Leis
– 54
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Epp
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Godfrey
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lee
| Leung
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lowther
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Manning
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Meredith
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solberg
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wappel
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 172
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
[English]
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1755
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Brien
|
Canuel
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Davies
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gruending
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Loubier
| Mancini
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Nystrom
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Wasylycia - Leis
– 54
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Epp
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Godfrey
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lee
| Leung
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lowther
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Manning
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Meredith
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Williams
| Wood – 174
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (B), 1999-2000
REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEES
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the
taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the
President of the Treasury Board relating to Supplementary
Estimates (B).
1805
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
| Cadman
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Carroll
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
|
Davies
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Duncan
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Epp
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Hanger
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Manning
|
Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Meredith
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Obhrai
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Penson
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Solberg
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wappel
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 184
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Brien
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Loubier
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp – 39
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
It being 6.09 p.m. the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
1911 CENSUS RECORDS
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take
all necessary steps to release the 1911 census records once they
have been deposited in the National Archives in 2003.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to a motion
on an important matter which has been of some concern. It reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take
all necessary steps to release the 1911 census records once they
have been deposited in the National Archives in 2003.
1810
On its face the motion may appear to be a rather technical and
arcane matter of concern only to a small community of
genealogists and amateur historians, but in fact the motion
speaks to a very important matter about access to our shared
history as a country.
All members of this place will know, having been contacted
undoubtedly by members of genealogical organizations, historical
associations, archivists and others, that the rules respecting
the normal release of the census data collected from the 1911
census have been interpreted in such as way as to prevent their
public release and access. Hence, for the first time in Canadian
history, historians will not have access to the data collected in
the 1911 census.
Up to and including the 1901 census in Canada, the census
records were transferred to the National Archives and were
subsequently made available to the public 92 years after
collection. This was possible because clauses in the Privacy Act
allowed for the release of certain pieces of information to the
National Archives subject to certain aspects of the Privacy Act.
However, in 1906 the Government of Canada passed an act
respecting the census and statistics in which section 68
empowered the governor in council, the cabinet, to make
regulations respecting confidentiality. The government of Sir
Wilfrid Laurier in 1906 did in fact promulgate certain orders in
council which restricted access to the census of 1911.
Apparently it did this because at that time there was concern
among the public that the data collected could be used in the
assessment of taxation and perhaps for the conscription of
Canadians in a future wartime conflict. There was some political
sensitivity and a feeling at that time that the public should be
assured the information it was obliged to surrender to the
government would be kept in confidence and not used for other
public purposes.
However, no commitment was made by the government either in
statute or regulation at that time that this information would be
kept secret in perpetuity. It was clear to all concerned,
according to many of the historians who have examined this
matter, that the regulation applied in the context of the day.
People understandably did not want to have bureaucrats,
politicians or others having access to personal information which
they were required to surrender under the Statistics Act.
It is a long and much honoured convention both in this country
and in similar jurisdictions that such information eventually
after a reasonable time, roughly the maximum period of an average
lifespan, ought eventually to become publicly accessible for
research and academic purposes.
In 1985 the justice department arrived at a legal opinion, an
interpretation of the statutory and regulatory decisions in 1906,
in which it decided the census data had to remain in secret in
perpetuity following the 1911 census. Thus today we find
ourselves in the position where in the last couple of years
archivists, genealogists and historians have suddenly discovered
that the huge treasure trove of historical data which they
anticipated would be deposited at the National Archives in 2003,
the data obtained in the 1911 census of Canadian subjects and
citizens, would not be made available.
1815
All across the country there are tens of thousands of concerned
Canadians who take a deep interest in the history of the country.
They began to express their concern about the secret nature of
the census records.
This is important because as we all know, in the first decade of
the 20th century, there was an enormous wave of immigration into
Canada. Many people today can trace their ancestors' arrival to
Canada to that period between 1901 and 1911. Many millions of
Canadian families have some ancestors who arrived, acquired land
and began their lives in this great country during those early
years of development, immigration and settlement.
The 1911 census represents a critical link to the past for
historians and genealogists. For us it is a window which allows
us to find who arrived generally from Europe at the time, where
they settled, how many people were in their families, their birth
dates, their relatives, the location of their land and their
occupations.
I do not think the release of this very basic genealogical data
would in any way violate the privacy of those who lived in the
country between 1901 and 1911. It goes without saying that the
vast majority of those people who were subject to the 1911 census
are today posthumous Canadians and indeed have no living interest
in the release of this information, but there are some. I can
say with some pride that next week my grandfather, Mart Kenney, a
great Canadian musician, will be celebrating his 90th birthday.
He was born in 1910 in Vancouver. I asked him if he would be
concerned if I and his other descendants could have access to
census information concerning his family in 1910. He said of
course not, that is ridiculous.
If we could consult those who lived at the time of the 1911
census and ask them whether they would object to their
grandchildren and great grandchildren, and academic and
professional historians, looking at the information to find out
where they settled, where they lived, how many people were in
their families and other data of this nature, I am sure we would
find that they would not raise any objection. I am sure they
would be intrigued to learn that there are so many thousands of
Canadians who are deeply concerned about their familial past,
their regional past and national past and hope they will have
access to this information.
Virtually every other jurisdiction in the developed democracies
recognize the principle that we must respect the privacy rights
of citizens when the government or state requires people to
surrender information under sanction of law. That ought to be
managed with great discretion. Information should for a lengthy
period of time be kept secret. However, these jurisdictions also
recognize that a time comes when such information no longer poses
a privacy interest for individuals but rather poses a public
interest for access by historians and others.
I can give examples of such jurisdictions. Australia releases
its census data after 100 years. France releases its census data
a century after collection. Denmark releases such data 65 years
after collection, well within a normal lifespan. In the United
Kingdom efforts are being made to release data after 100 years.
Surely the 92 year rule which we have respected in Canada until
today is an adequate period of time to ensure and protect the
privacy interests of those who filled out census forms in 1911.
The legal status quo is interpreted by the justice department
and applied by Statistics Canada. It does not only affect the
1911 census. It affects all censuses taken since then.
If we maintain the legal status quo in this regard, never again
will Canadian historians, archivists or genealogists be able to
reach back in time and research the important information which
gives us clues to the past from whence we came.
1820
Too often we forget the importance of our history. In this
country in particular we can read the brilliant best-selling book
Who Killed Canadian History? authored by eminent Canadian
historian Jack Granatstein last year. We can look at the polling
information which suggests that the vast majority of Canadians,
and young Canadians in particular, have an astounding ignorance
about the basic facts of our national history, our political
history, our military history and our social history. One could
make the argument that this country is losing touch with its
past. A country which does not know from whence it came is a
country that has no clear direction in the future.
It is essential for a thriving, modern democracy like Canada to
have a deep sense of its past. That is not just done by academic
historians writing sweeping histories about the socioeconomic and
political history of the country. That understanding of our
history is, at its most profound level, conducted by amateur
genealogists and historians who dig into the past of particular
families with their own particular traditions. This is very
important information. It helps the thousands and thousands of
people every day who are collecting the data on who settled in
Canada, where they settled and how they built their lives in this
place. It contributes collectively to our historical
understanding as a nation.
It is extremely important that parliament hear the voices of
those Canadians who are concerned about our history by opening up
access to the 1911 census and all census data which has been
collected since then.
This motion is limited in its scope. Once more it seeks only to
release the 1911 census records, something which could be
achieved by amending the Statistics Act to make it evident that
this will be public information once deposited at the National
Archives in 2003. Again the scope is limited. It only deals
with that census. However, should the House in its wisdom decide
to vote for this private member's motion, which in fact has been
granted votable status by the relevant committee, that I hope
would be taken by the government as direction from parliament to
amend the Statistics Act to permit access to all census data
collected from 1911 onward, and indeed from the 2001 census into
the future.
This may seem to be a modest motion, and indeed it is, but it is
an important one. I believe that the overwhelming number of
Canadians who have an understanding of this issue desire for the
government to open up access to our past, not to lock away this
important historical information into some vault, and certainly
not to destroy that information as some, shall we say,
absolutists in the privacy field have suggested.
There are those who do not see the need for a balance between
the interest of privacy and the public interest of access to
information. There are those whom I would characterize as
absolutists on the question of privacy and who actually have
recommended that the National Archives destroy the census data
once it has been deposited there so that no one in the future can
ever gain access to it.
Let us send a clear signal to the chief statistician, the
national archivist and the Government of Canada that Canadians
want access to our past. They want to respect Canadians'
privacy, but we believe that can be done with the 92 year
timeframe in place and contemplated by my motion.
I look forward to the debate which will ensue. I hope that when
it is concluded, members of this place will choose to vote in
favour of Motion No. 160 and allow us to open up a window into
our past while respecting the privacy rights of Canadians who
have gone before us.
1825
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted to speak to this motion by the member for
Calgary Southeast that the government should take all necessary
steps to release the 1911 census records. I can give him the
happy news that we do not require the government to take this
step whatsoever. There is a private member's bill, Bill C-206,
which is before the House on the order of precedence at this
moment which would do precisely what the member for Calgary
Southeast requires.
An hon. member: Which member?
Mr. John Bryden: I believe it is the member for
Wentworth—Burlington who has this particular private member's
bill. I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that not only does the
member for Wentworth—Burlington have this bill before the House,
he has some 112 seconders from all parties who gave support to
this bill to go on the order of precedence. I do not know
whether the member for Calgary Southeast was one of those who
actually seconded this particular piece of legislation. I hope he
was.
What it does is it amends the Access to Information Act such
that schedule II of the act is eliminated. Schedule II of the
Access to Information Act lists those pieces of legislation that
particularly raise barriers for the disclosure of certain types
of information. For example, one of the schedule II items is in
the Income Tax Act where a non-profit organization's financial
returns and other types of personal information are not
available. That is in the Income Tax Act. The Statistics Act is
similar in that it restricts access to certain types of census
records going all the way back to 1911. However, Bill C-206, by
eliminating schedule II, brings all these other items of
legislation under the Access to Information Act.
What happens is the Access to Information Act is the superior
legislation when it comes to measuring whether information in
other legislation should be withheld or not. So whether it is
the Statistics Act, or the Income Tax Act or any other items of
legislation that have withholding clauses, they still have to be
subject to the test of the Access to Information Act.
Bill C-206, among other things, amends the Access to Information
Act such that all documents held by the government over 30 years
old which are not obviously a threat to national security if
disclosed, or would disclose information that would be injurious
to individuals and so on and so forth, or all documents that do
not have obvious injury components in terms of their impact on
the public would automatically be released.
I have had representations from the people from Statistics
Canada. They are of the view that if Bill C-206 is allowed to go
forward and amend the Access to Information Act as it exists,
then the Statistics Canada legislation that prevents the 1911
census records from being released will be overturned and these
documents will be readily available, at least census records up
to 30 years ago.
The member in his motion is calling on the government to act
when in fact we have the happy situation for us all that it is
not the government that needs to act, it is backbench MPs who
have this opportunity to act. What is particularly important
about Bill C-206, my private member's bill—I have to admit it is
mine—is that in order to get onto the order paper it sought and
received the seconding by 112 members of the House, all backbench
MPs on all sides of this House, no government members or
parliamentary secretaries.
1830
This was 100% a backbench initiative. Indeed the Reform Party
and the Bloc Quebecois were especially supportive of this
initiative. I am very pleased to report that although I have to
say that unfortunately the Reform Party did move a point of
privilege on Bill C-206. I regret that there is some doubt now
whether Bill C-206 will indeed stay on the order of precedence.
I realize that the Reform point of privilege was poorly advised
because I think the Reform Party were under the impression that
certain changes were made to Bill C-206, which subsequently got
unanimous consent in the House, that may have substantially
affected things in the bill that the Reform Party would have been
very concerned about.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that when I sought unanimous
consent for Bill C-206 I was convinced that the support
originally indicated for Bill C-206 when I originally sought the
signatures would remain. Regardless of any changes that I
undertook, and which I obtained unanimous consent for, I thought
that those changes would by and large receive the support of the
very seconders who put their names to the original bill.
However this is before the House. I am confident that the
members of the Reform Party, and the Bloc Quebecois indeed, have
I think an enormous interest and a vital interest, as we all do
as parliamentarians, in openness in government and being able to
access the documents, be they census records or any other kind of
government documents that we need to have in order to be informed
about the efficiency of the operation of government.
I want to return to the motion, but I shall say in passing that
I have examined very carefully Bill C-206 and the impact of its
amendments on the current Access to Information Act and I have
compared it to the American freedom of information act. I can
tell you, Mr. Speaker, that to reform, to use the word that my
colleagues opposite do favour a lot, the Access to Information
Act with Bill C-206 will create the most sophisticated and the
most effective freedom of information legislation in the world.
It is no wonder that this amendment is coming forward from not
just this private member but from private members on all sides of
the House who have at least endorsed the principle of the bill to
see that it would get on the order of precedence. They may have
difficulty with some of the changes that might occur at committee
stage or that might occur at report stage. Even some members
might decide to vote against the bill when it finally reaches
third reading because of some changes they might have perceived
en route, but the point is that backbench MPs in this parliament
for the first time ever have advanced a bill based on seconding
the bill in principle, and it is before the House.
I would expect that if it goes through, and I am surely hopeful
that it will, it will address the concern of the member for
Calgary Southeast about the 1911 census records. It will fix
that problem immediately. He can say that to his constituents
and he can say to all those people who have wrote we MPs and have
said open those records because they are part of our historic
heritage. If the Reform Party, backbench MPs, opposition MPs,
the Bloc Quebecois MPs, the Conservatives and the NDP are indeed
supportive of openness in government, I am sure that they do not
need to just support this motion of the member for Calgary
Southeast. They have the opportunity to actually see it enacted
by supporting Bill C-206.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
take part in this debate, which deals with Motion No. 160, in
spite of the fact that the member for Wentworth—Burlington
talked about his private member's bill.
What we have here—and Bloc Quebecois members generally share my
views on this and certain agree with the comments I am about to
make—is a member who moved a motion, Motion No. 160, which we are
debating today, and another one, the member for
Wentworth—Burlington, in Ontario, who introduced a bill on
basically the same issue.
1835
The member for Wentworth—Burlington is trying to embellish
somewhat the background for his bill. Reformers have complained
in this House, as did our House leader, who is recovering from
his recent open heart surgery, and to whom I wish a speedy
recovery. The Minister of Human Resources Development, while
wishing him no harm, must hope that his recovery will be a long
one, because we know the dedication of the member for Roberval
in handling issues like human resources development in particular.
The member—he may be sick but he is by no means dead; he is a
strong man and he is getting his strength back—spoke out against
the actions of the member for Wentworth—Burlington, who collected
signatures from his colleagues here, in parliament. I very
clearly recall that the member for Roberval said—and I know what
he was talking about, being a notary myself—that it was like a
notary reading a five page notarial act, having the last page
signed and, after the parties have signed, changing the first
four pages, putting in there whatever he wanted, and passing
that for the authentic act. There would be a possibility of
fraud, and the Quebec Notarial Act, which I respect, would say
that it is not a valid document.
Unfortunately, this is the kind of attitude and behaviour that
make the member for Wentworth—Burlington a terribly suspicious
character in this parliament. There is no man more partisan, no
Orangeman more orange than him.
The member for Wentworth—Burlington is a danger to his opposition
colleagues, because keeping one's word is a concept that does
not mean anything to him. He has no respect for this principle.
An hon. member: He is arrogant.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: He is arrogant, indeed, and a resolutely
orange Orangemen. I would rather put my confidence in my
colleague from the Reform Party who gave us the real reasons why
the 1911 census records should be released.
Some people in our society claim that release should be allowed,
while others push respect for confidentiality and privacy too
far. Even if it became known 92 years later that, in 1911, my
grandfather owned two horses instead of one, I wonder how this
could bother him. He has, unfortunately, been dead for quite
some time.
What I mean is that one should not be mean either as the member
for Wentworth—Burlington usually is.
My colleague's initiative shows an obvious interest in history.
At a time when we are talking about genetic diseases, to have a
period of time, even if its only five years in our history to
which one does not have access, is to deprive people of the
opportunity to track down their roots and know their genealogy,
going as far back as their forebears, beyond 1911, but somehow
there is a link missing here in demographic and sociological
data. This is something we have to respect, like anything else,
and provide to those who are interested. I for one am
interested.
If we were talking about butterflies, for instance, it might be
different. I am not that keen on butterflies, even though I like
my colleague Mr. Hanfield, who is a notary in Mont-Saint-Hilaire
and an entomologist who wrote a manual on butterflies in Quebec.
1840
My friend, the notary Louis Hanfield from Mont-Saint-Hilaire, whom
I salute in passing, published Le Guide des papillons du Québec
last summer. It is fantastic. I am interested in butterflies. If
my friend Louis Hanfield had skipped one page, and three or four
butterflies were missing from his guide, I would not mind
because butterflies are not what I dream about.
On the other hand, I have a keen interest in genealogy. I know
mine, I know Quebec's history. Quebecers, especially those
sitting here, know their history very well. They know about
their past, including the history of Acadia. We have a colleague
here who comes from there. For the most part, Quebecers and
Acadians share the same roots.
We are proud, as he is proud too.
For some, history is an important field, if only for research
into genetic defects. I know a lot of the history of Quebec and
eastern Canada, but I know a lot less about western Canada or
the context surrounding the development of the central and
western provinces. There is information there.
I have been in Saskatchewan to visit my friend the member for
Regina—Qu'Appelle. Qu'Appelle is a French sounding word. It
comes from the French language. How is it there is a region, a
city, a town with that name in Saskatchewan? For me, a
marvelling visitor to Qu'Appelle, I wonder what that means.
This is the sort of information that could interest me.
I in fact stopped in Qu'Appelle. They asked me what I was doing
there.
It was the French name Qu'Appelle that made me wonder. I was
called to Qu'Appelle, a cappella, because Qu'Appelle called. I
hope you understand. I am not sure I understand myself, but I
follow what I am saying.
All that to say that we can laugh here too. We can take this
motion with a hint of humour.
Because of the credibility of the member for Calgary Southeast,
not so far from Qu'Appelle, who moved Motion No. 160, I will
support it.
It is probably because he recalls that people in Qu'Appelle are
of French descent that the member introduced his Motion no 160.
Because of his credibility compared with the total lack of
credibility, consideration and respect for his colleagues at all
times of the member for Wentworth—Burlington, I favour the adage
“a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush”.
At least I have the proposal for the motion of the member from
Calgary Southeast, near Qu'Appelle, who calls his Motion No. 160.
I call on my colleagues to support Motion No. 160 and to stand
against the unspeakable assaults of the member for
Wentworth—Burlington in an effort to get us to reject what I
would call a fine motion.
1845
[English]
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to speak to Motion No. 160, which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take
all necessary steps to release the 1911 census records once they
have been deposited in the National Archives in 2003.
I appreciate the intent of this motion. I have received many
letters of concern from genealogists in my constituency and from
around the country over the issue of releasing information.
My understanding is that Sir Wilfrid Laurier passed the first
law citing the issue of confidentiality in the early 1900s. The
information in the census of 1911 was collected from Canadians
with the understanding that the material would not be released.
Subsequent laws have reinforced the confidentiality of all data
collected by Statistics Canada.
The information gathered in these surveys provides an important
resource for the basis of policy and program creation, as we all
know. However, people do not give out their personal information
lightly. I have received many calls and letters over time from
people in Dartmouth who have been contacted by Statistics Canada
for various surveys, such as the census survey that we are
required to complete every five years, and people are not happy
about this. They have a pre-eminent concern about
confidentiality.
I come from a part of the country where geneology, memories and
our roots are extremely important and where our family heritage
is a resource for which people are fiercely proud. Amateur
genealogists are researchers and storytellers and they have a
determination to find out where they came from and a
determination to use every possible resource to do so. We in the
NDP take their concerns very seriously.
When we first learned about the cries from historians and
genealogists, the previous NDP industry critic, Chris Axworthy,
wrote to the Minister of Industry asking that he make a decision
about releasing this information to the National Archives after
92 years, which had been the standard.
The feeling of the NDP caucus was that the issue demanded a
balance be struck between confidentiality and reasonable access.
However, the need to restrict access by Canadians to the
post-1901 census records was highly questionable, particularly
when there is much greater availability of census materials in
the U.S.
The Minister of Industry deferred to the chief statistician who
pointed out that he could not legally release the data to anyone.
Since then the federal privacy commissioner, Bruce Phillips,
announced his strong opposition to releasing the data by saying:
People who give information to the government under penalty of
law on an unqualified promise of confidentiality are entitled to
expect that that trust will be honoured.
Mr. Phillips also speaks of the right of Canadians to have
control over their own information rather than “people with a
vested interest” using and making decisions about that
information. In these days of limited privacy and control of our
own information, his point is well taken. The passions and
implications for public policy surrounding this are fierce.
As the culture critic for the New Democrats, I am aware that one
of the major uses of our public archives has been for
genealogical research and that this community feels that the
denial of access to the 1911 census information makes their
search for roots much more difficult.
In response to the concerns of the privacy commissioner and to
calls from historians and amateur genealogists, the Minister of
Industry has now appointed an expert panel on access to
historical census records.
I believe that a respectful course of action at this point is to
wait for that panel's report and see if some kind of balance,
which I believe can be achieved, will be found to let Canadians
find their roots and allow us assurances of privacy.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, it gives me
great pleasure to rise to address the motion raised by the member
for Calgary Southeast with respect to the release of the
post-1901 census records.
Upon initial consideration, supporting this motion may seem to
be quite a simple decision.
1850
However, as we begin to uncover the complexities of this matter,
this decision becomes a much more difficult one to make.
In recent months a number of genealogists and historians have
articulated their collective disappointment that the 1911 census
records will not be available for review in the public domain in
the year 2003. These individuals had previously expected the
1911 census records to be made available for research purposes in
this particular year because census records have been, up to this
point, accessible to the public after 92 years.
However, censuses administered after 1901 fall subject to the
Statistics Act that explicitly prohibits the release of all
census records. This prohibition does not allow anyone to access
census records for any reason. The only exception is that
individuals may access his or her own personal records. But that
is the only current exception. An individual may not access the
census records of anyone else, not even those belonging to his or
her immediate family members nor even those records belonging to
members of the ancestral family tree.
The dilemma here is quite clear and yet it is quite difficult to
resolve. We have two competing interests that present a
difficult case for the House. On the one hand we have the
reality of statutory integrity upon which our nation is founded
and, on the other hand, practical idealism presented to us by
historical curiosity.
Many have argued that the release of census records is crucial
to furthering the knowledge Canadians hold of their past, of
their communities, of their families and of themselves. Access
to census records is what enables individuals, scholars,
researchers and historians alike to trace their respective
histories and to answer questions about their past: from
questions as simple, yet so personally important as when exactly
one's ancestry arrived in Canada, to questions as drawn and as
nationally significant as the face of the brave men who fought
and defended Canada in the first world war. Answering these
questions can indeed teach Canadians a lot about themselves and
about their origins.
In fact, Canadian amateurs, historians and academics alike have
called upon these records to answer these and countless other
questions which offer great insight into our history as a people.
As such. the availability of census returns up to 1901 have been
a tremendous resource for researchers in search of information
with respect to housing, health, income and general social
conditions of the day. But again, researchers have been able to
conduct their invaluable research based on the laws in place
before 1906 which authorized the release of these census records
92 years after they were taken.
For the first time, census data will not be available to
Canadians come the year 2003, the year during which census data
from 1911 would have been available in the National Archives for
public reference.
On the other side, those who argue that the census records
should be released to the public argue that respect for statutory
integrity is quite important, particularly for our nation. In
1906, when the change was made that all future censuses would be
kept confidential and rendered forever inaccessible, legislators
made a commitment to Canadians. This commitment, this promise
was that Canadians' responses to census questions would not be
divulged to anyone, not even to the most trusted and loved ones.
The federal government currently requires Canadian residents to
answer increasingly intrusive and intimate questions on its
census. These questions include proddings into Canadians'
marital status, physical characteristics, nationality, ethnic
origin, wages earned, insurance held, educational attainment and
also proddings into respondents' infirmities and sicknesses.
Clearly, the government census is not an everyday survey or
questionnaire. It is very involved and it can also make for quite
a personal experience.
While most Canadians will readily answer these questions and
willingly provide the federal government with the information it
requests, others will be more hesitant to divulge this very
personal information. Still, because the federal government
requires Canadians to do so under penalty of fine or
imprisonment, Canadians do indeed answer all these questions,
albeit hesitantly perhaps. Why do they answer these intrusive
questions? What puts their minds at ease in divulging this
information? It is no more than the federal government's
unqualified guarantee of confidentiality that allows Canadians to
answer these personal questions.
This guarantee is what convinced Canadians to divulge so much of
themselves dating back to 1911. This guarantee puts the minds of
Canadians at ease when, in the absence of such a guarantee, it is
extremely doubtful that Canadians would willingly and accurately
provide this information. The guarantee offered by the federal
government through the Statistics Act was and remains the pledge
that the federal government has professed to Canadians.
1855
Here is our dilemma. It will please the member for Calgary
Southeast to know that although the Laurier government promised
that the information collected post-1901 would remain
confidential, the puzzling thing is that it is really not clear
why this promise was made. Furthermore, archival records
indicate that the confidentiality provision was designed to
reassure citizens that census enumerators would not pass along
information to tax collectors or military conscription personnel.
What does this mean? Simply that the reasoning for instituting
this law remains unclear today and, more to the point, that
Canadians in post-1901 may not have been as concerned with
privacy as we think they were.
It is true that the times have changed dramatically since 1901
and so have cultural values. While today we place the utmost
importance on personal issues, back then, as archival information
indicates, the reasons for keeping census records forever
confidential was that Canadians feared the information would leak
to tax collectors and military personnel, not because they wanted
to keep the information confidential forever. Canadians'
concerns in 1906 were short term: “Let's keep this information
away from the tax man and from the military”. The goal was not
to keep the information from historians.
At a time when Canadians are increasingly interested in their
past and when private foundations, such as the newly created
Historica are allocating millions to improve the teaching and
dissemination of Canadian history, it does not make sense that we
would be barred from access to our own history.
While I certainly do appreciate the concern for statutory
integrity and privacy interests, I do not believe that releasing
the census records 92 years after the administration of the
Census Act would pose an infringement on either of these
principles. In the U.S. it is 72 years and in Australia it is
99, so 92 is reasonable. It is not an infringement of statutory
integrity nor an invasion of privacy since after 92 years those
who completed the census as adults are likely deceased, at which
point the concern for privacy is moot.
Furthermore, Canadians today have been quite vocal in their
support for releasing census records for research purposes.
Given the overwhelming support for the release of the records, we
in the House cannot ignore the call of Canadians. This is an
instance where the sensibilities of Canadians, what they feel is
right and justifiable, must be recognized. If Canadians of today
do not feel that the release of census records is an infringement
on the privacy rights of Canadians of yesterday, then we as
legislators have no choice but to acknowledge their call.
If Canadians today wish to retain access to census records 92
years after censuses have been administered, then I do believe
that, given the precedent set in the period leading up to 1911,
we must accommodate them. In so doing, we would be accommodating
ourselves as well, for research into our history as a people and
as a nation may only be furthered by allowing access to these
invaluable records.
Therefore, I offer my wholehearted support to the motion brought
forth by the member for Calgary Southeast.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I seek unanimous consent from the House to divide my
time with the member for Lethbridge.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to permit
the hon. member to divide his time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, short of not getting
unanimous consent, I will say that my colleague from Lethbridge
supports the intervention I will make today.
I compliment the member for Calgary Southeast for putting forth
Motion No. 160 which asks that the 1911 census records, once they
have been deposited in the National Archives in 2003, be made
public.
The bottom line is that we have an issue here, pro and con,
between two competing interests: one, for people to have access
to the 1911 census and indeed the census after that once 92 years
have passed; and two, the privacy rights of people who, by force
of law, were obligated to provide information in those census to
the government.
1900
We have to look at the facts. If it is an issue of privacy with
which we would all agree, we have to also look at the timeline.
Ninety-two years will have passed before any information from
this census could be made public. Virtually all the people
affected by this census will be dead. Certainly all the adults
affected by this census will be dead once 92 years have passed.
Therefore, in the interests of being reasonable, is it not
reasonable to allow information from 1911 to be released?
Why should it be released? It is very important from an
historical perspective. I was quite surprised to see the number
of people in my riding, and indeed people from around the
country, who very much want this census to be released. The
reason for that is not only from a genealogical perspective but
also from the historical perspective,
These censuses provide invaluable information to historians to
piece together the history of our country in an accurate fashion.
That is what the census enables us to do because it provides
information that deals with issues such as age, various
demographic principles, housing, health and a wide variety of
subjects that are essential for us to understand our past. By
understanding our past, we get an important indication and view
into our future.
Canadian history, if I can use the words of Irving Abella, is in
a state of crisis because this essential information is not being
allowed to be put out. The public will be interested to know
that this is not an arbitrary decision by the government. It is
a decision that is there by law that was put forward by Sir
Wilfrid Laurier. His law states that all information in censuses
after 1906 would not be made public at all, contrary to censuses
previous to that. Censuses previous to 1906 were in fact made
public.
We have interesting dilemma on our hands and I challenge any
member who opposes this worthy motion to show where it is
harmful. If we look at the experiences of other countries we
find it is very interesting. The U.S. and many other countries
allow census data to be released after a time that varies from 64
to 100 years. If it were such a problem to release census
information, would we not also find that this would be a problem
in other democracies? Would we not also hear a cry from people
who believe in democratic principles that the release of census
information would somehow be an infringement on the privacy of
individuals? Do we hear that from other democracies or other
western nations? We do not.
Clearly we can see that our country by preventing the release of
census information is compromising the very ability of
historians, genealogists and others to get important information
about our nation's history. It does not impede or compromise the
privacy of individuals. We need to look at this subject in the
historical context and the international context to find very
clearly that the release of census information after 92 years
does not in any way, shape or form compromise the privacy of
individuals who are living today.
I know the privacy commissioner disagrees with the point of view
expressed by members from across party lines, but he has a
position to uphold and an important one at that. However the
privacy commissioner is wrong on this issue. We need to amend
the current legislation, take hold of Motion No. 160 put forward
by my colleague from Calgary Southeast and ensure that the 1911
census records will be deposited, and they should be deposited,
in the National Archives in 2003. That information should be
made public to all who want to have access to it.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have listened intently to the debate and I will say at
the outset that I am opposed to the motion because what is at
stake is the very essence of confidentiality.
1905
I recall from my experience as a medical doctor, and the member
who just participated in the debate belongs to the same
profession, that confidentiality is the very essence of personal
integrity. Even if we invoke the argument that we would like to
study the history of our people, the history of our country, that
we will sustain freedom of information because we are in a
democracy, confidentiality is a supreme principle that not one of
these points can supersede.
I heard during debate that we are in a dilemma. I agree that we
are in a dilemma because there are competing interests, but the
question to me is very clear. All other interests are
subservient to the principle of privacy, in particular when the
information was given to the Canadian census by a Canadian at the
time, though now maybe deceased, in the honest belief that never
would it be released.
Imagine a dead person in his or her grave, unable to speak
today, and we, the living, say “I am sorry but in the best
interest of history, in the best interest of democracy, now we
will forget our promise to you”.
An hon. member: What do you guys know about democracy?
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Would the member just be quiet
please out of respect for democracy? The Reform Party speaks
about democracy, but at the same time when I try to speak in a
way that somehow pierces his heart and pierces his conscience,
the member is trying to disturb me. He cannot disturb me in the
ultimate analysis.
The real test of confidentiality is when one is tempted to
breach it and one resists that. That is the real test of living
up to confidentiality, even when only one person is opposed
during that census time who may be living now and says “No, that
may not be released”.
I did not know this motion would be debated. What is really at
stake here is that sense of public trust. The member from the
Reform Party is laughing at public trust. I am really saddened,
but he will not distract me. Only the persons who did not give
consent to revealing confidential information may withdraw it and
have it released. That is the essence of confidentiality. He
who cannot live with confidentiality I challenge. How can we
trust that particular person?
The real test of confidentiality is when we are tempted to
breach it for some other wishes and if we do not then we have
lived up to the principle of confidentiality. That is why, if I
may add, at one time there was a study of medical confidentiality
in Ontario by the Grange commission. You know, Mr. Speaker,
because you belong to the legal profession, you would fully
appreciate that it would impose the most severe penalty for
breach of confidentiality.
In conclusion I say I hope we do not support this motion. It
would be a breach of public trust. It would be a breach of our
promise. Though now they may be deceased the more we should
respect them.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the
consideration of this item of Private Members' Business has now
expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of
precedence on the order paper.
* * *
STANLEY KNOWLES DAY
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
commemorate Stanley Knowles by declaring June 18 (birthday of Mr.
Knowles) of each year to be Stanley Knowles Day throughout
Canada.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here this evening to
speak to the motion respecting a day to recognize the late
Stanley Knowles.
Stanley Knowles, the parliamentarian and the man, goes beyond
partisan views. His work here in the House over the years
received great acclaim from all parties.
1910
I wanted us as Canadians and as parliamentarians to recognize
Stanley Knowles. As well I am looking to our recognizing other
great Canadians by designating days for them. We fail to do that
as Canadians. We recognize Victoria Day. Certainly we have
historical connections to England and to the Royal Family. The
U.S. recognizes numerous days. It takes pride in its history and
in its great leaders that brought that country over the years to
a democratic system.
I think as Canadians we fail to do that. We fail to take pride
in our country. As a result we see some of the problems we are
in today. We do not take the time to be proud of the people who
have worked for our democratic country and have led it through
the years. I will speak a lot about Stanley Knowles because it
was my intent that it would be the opportune time as we go into
the new millennium to recognize him as the man that he was.
Without question Stanley Knowles is a legendary Canadian. He
was a pioneering New Democrat with an intergenerational voice who
spoke for all and still speaks to us now. My colleague, our
health critic, mentioned in his speech today what Stanley Knowles
gave us in 1958. Does that still speak to us today about our
going through the same things in the House of Commons. He said:
We welcome the beginning of a hospital insurance plan. But if it
is a good idea to cover hospital bills by an insurance plan, why
not do the same for all medical bills? The Liberals promised
health insurance in 1919 but had no intention of starting it
until 1959. Apparently, it was Mr. Mackenzie King's reading of
the Bible, about the children of Israel having to wander the
wilderness for 40 years, that prompted him to require the people
of Canada to wander in the wilderness of high medical costs for
40 years before making even a start in this field.
He went on to say:
And now we have the spectacle of the present Liberal leader
promising, all over again, what the Liberal Party first pledged
itself to 40 years ago.
Here we are, another 42 years later. Does it not sound
familiar? He further stated:
But Pearson's promise today is even more vague and misleading
than most Liberal promises have proved to be.
I think Stanley Knowles definitely speaks to us even today. As
well I will take this opportunity to comment that Stanley Knowles
also said:
Debate is not a sin, a mistake, an error or something to be put
up with in parliament. Debate is the essence of parliament.
What have we seen as parliamentarians in the House of Commons in
the last while with this government? Numerous time allocations
and probably the most horrendous thing today is that regulations
will be passed once again to stifle the voice of parliamentary
debate. I am sure Stanley Knowles would be turning over in his
grave.
My colleague from Winnipeg—Transcona said in his eulogy to
Stanley Knowles:
He was the last of a line of prairie ministers whose view of
politics was shaped by their belief in the social gospel and
biblical prophecies...Stanley was an exemplary politician. His
knowledge of parliamentary rules and proceedings superseded that
of many of his colleagues on either side of the House.
To understand Stanley Knowles we must understand the
indissoluble link between Stanley Knowles the politician and
Stanley Knowles the man. This was Stanley Knowles' integrity,
his ability to bring together his belief system and his
unwavering faith in our parliamentary system.
Growing up, Stanley had faced challenges that led him to follow
the path that he did. As stated in the Montreal Gazette a
few days after he passed on:
His social-democratic views were formed the hard way: by the
death of his mother, Margaret, to tuberculosis and poor health
care when he was 11.
His father, Stanley Ernest, lost his job during the Depression
without pension or benefit.
1915
Stanley Knowles was on a lifelong mission. He himself stated
“This became more or less the goal of my life, to correct what
happened to my own family”.
Is that not often what it takes to get us going, to really fight
for the things we believe in, that we do not want to see other
people suffer some of the problems, illnesses and tragedies that
we had to go through. We want to make a better life for the
people around us and for our families.
Stanley's political career with the CCF began in 1934. He held
various positions throughout those years including that of
national vice-president from 1954 to 1961. His son David said
that his father initially decided that he would work to save
people's souls through the church but he soon realized that
preaching from the pulpit was not going to put food on the table
or get people hospital care. He realized he was in the wrong
place and he should be in parliament.
According to historian Susan Mann he had to change laws rather
than souls. Stanley Knowles went out to preach from a different
house, the House of Commons. He ran for parliament in 1935 and
again in 1940. He was elected as the CCF member for Winnipeg
North Centre on November 30, 1942.
I now have two colleagues, the member for Winnipeg Centre and
for Winnipeg North Centre, who represent the riding that Stanley
once represented.
Stanley succeeded the late J. S. Woodsworth. He was elected in
1945, 1949, 1953, 1957, 1963, 1968, 1972, 1974, 1979 and 1980.
How would any of us feel to have the support of our constituents
the way they stood behind this man because of the man he was?
His integrity was never at question. That we should be elected
that many times, we would definitely deserve to have our name
recognized within Canada, a day recognized on our behalf, if we
were able to make that kind of commitment to our constituents.
Stanley's career as a parliamentarian was brilliant. Many
honours were bestowed upon him in recognition of his knowledge of
parliamentary procedure and his integrity as a social democrat.
In 1957 John Diefenbaker offered Stanley the Speakership.
According to the Montreal Gazette, the new Tory prime
minister, the highly partisan John Diefenbaker was so impressed
by Mr. Knowles that he offered him the job as Speaker of the
Commons. Mr. Knowles declined. Why did he decline? He declined
because it would constrain his ability to fight for pension
reform on behalf of his constituents. That was a
parliamentarian.
For Stanley Knowles the politician, government and its laws were
to become his instruments of transformation and education to make
Canadian society a better place for all. He fought persistently
for the elderly and more specifically for the national pension
plan. He also fought for the poor, for children, for women and
for veterans.
During his 42 years in the House, Stanley not only gained
respect for the role of parliament and its procedure but a sound
understanding of it. It is no wonder that his career as a
parliamentarian did not end when he ended his term as an active
member of parliament in 1984.
NDP leader Ed Broadbent suggested that the House honour Stanley.
Prime Minister Trudeau at that time followed through on the
suggestion with a lifelong membership in the House and a seat at
the clerk's table.
On March 13, 1984, the House voted unanimously and Stanley was
able to keep living in the house that was his home, the House of
Commons. In October of the same year Stanley Knowles was
recognized as an officer of the Order of Canada.
Regardless of his health needs and his frailty, Stanley still
attended question period daily. I am sure all of us would be
thrilled to say that we had been in question period daily for our
whole time here in Ottawa. He enjoyed the ritual, the rules and
the history of parliament's hallowed halls which he has now
joined.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is good to be on duty in the House today and to
participate in two debates on subjects that are close to my
heart.
1920
Let me speak about Stanley Knowles. Mr. Speaker, I believe you
and I came to the House at the same time in 1988. I then
represented Winnipeg North. I understand from the political
history that a small part of that riding had previously been
represented by Mr. Stanley Knowles. I inherited with great pride
the tradition that Mr. Knowles left. I saw to it to have a
conversation with him during my first few days on Parliament
Hill. I will continue to cherish that memory.
He reminded me of the first speech he gave when he was in
California. It was about the Philippines, my country of birth.
He was a vivid and caring person. Indeed I agree that he was a
visionary and a person of deep social conscience. He fought for
the poor, veterans and seniors, the very essence of our political
calling. He said that debate gives testimony to democracy and I
agree. He spoke of procedure and how to use it to effect a
change. But he said that the procedural rules as they existed
should never be abused by any frivolous approach to the
procedures. He said that within the existing procedures we
should use our imagination to advance our cause. In fact, I very
much enjoyed reading the book in my first few months on
Parliament Hill.
It was my extreme honour a couple of years ago when the Minister
of Public Works and Government Services requested that I appear
on his behalf and speak on behalf of the Government of Canada in
the naming of a building in Winnipeg for Stanley Knowles. It was
an honour for me to be with the members of his family.
In closing, by continuing to honour Mr. Stanley Knowles, we are
honouring and sustaining the nobility of politics itself.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak to Motion
No. 211 which calls on the government to declare June 18 to be
Stanley Knowles Day.
I begin my remarks by commending the hon. member for Churchill
for introducing this motion on behalf of the NDP and in fact
Canadians who look up to Mr. Knowles and have great respect for
his work.
Mr. Knowles was born on June 18, 1908. As you know, Mr.
Speaker, I am a relatively new Canadian. My family and I have
been in Canada less than 10 years. Still I know a little bit
about Stanley Knowles and from what I know I can say that I
highly appreciate what he did for our country.
He was a politician who was dedicated to representing the people
who elected him. He delivered his maiden speech to the House on
February 3, 1943. He represented the riding of Winnipeg North
Centre for over 37 years, from 1942 to 1958 and again from 1962
to 1984. That alone can be considered a remarkable feat. I
wonder how many of us can even imagine enjoying such a large
amount of support for so many years. The people of Winnipeg had
a great deal of confidence in their MP.
The NDP member for Churchill should be commended. The socialist
camp in our country must be very proud of Stanley Knowles,
claiming him as one of their own. I know that Stanley sat at the
clerk's table for many years after he completed his career as a
member of parliament.
In 1984 he became the only member of parliament ever to be made
an honorary officer of the House of Commons with a lifelong chair
at the clerk's table.
1925
To the credit of the Liberal government of the day, it was
former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau who extended the generous
and kind offer to Mr. Knowles to stay as a member of the House
with his own office in this very building.
As a long time House leader of the NDP, his knowledge of the
rules and his love for parliament had no equal. A follower of the
social gospel, he was renowned for his advocacy on behalf of the
elderly, veterans, the poor and other disadvantaged Canadians.
Canadians will be glad to be reminded of Mr. Knowles'
accomplishments in this place.
He delivered what some have called one of the greatest speeches
in the House while opposing the Liberal government's use of time
allocation. The way I have heard the story told, during the 1957
pipeline debate the Louis St. Laurent government tried to cut off
debate in the House. That was a Liberal government. The
Liberals were trying to limit debate in the same way the Liberal
government today does time and again. Back in those days the
government's use of closure and time allocation was not common.
Mr. Knowles was a western populist. He came from the roots of
where the NDP and the Reform Party supporters come from. My
colleagues and I are here to represent those Canadians who know
how Stanley Knowles felt when the government tried to use time
allocation to ram a bill through the House.
The present government has used time allocation and closure at
least 61 times to deprive elected members of the House an
opportunity to debate. This is ridiculous. This is so
undemocratic that it is anti-democratic. It is almost a
dictatorship.
In fact the 60th time the government closed debate on a bill was
the week before last on the very day the House was supposed to be
debating this motion. The government shut down debate on the
clarity bill aimed at clarifying how a future referendum for
secession will be conducted. This occurred on the very day we
were going to ask the government to make arrangements to
commemorate an hon. member of the House, someone who fought
against time allocation and closure and the limiting of debate in
the House. It is so ironic that the man who fought against time
allocation on the pipeline bill, a very famous debate in the
House more than 40 years ago, is himself the topic of debate in
the House.
The 61st time the Liberals cut off debate was on the bill that
makes changes to the Canada Elections Act. This bill favours the
governing party and in this case it favours the Liberal Party and
the Liberals are not going to change that. They have not
listened to the Chief Electoral Officer and they have not
listened to the witnesses who appeared before the committee. They
have no respect for the kind of forward thinking Stanley Knowles
was famous for. He would not have supported this legislation if
he were speaking from this side of the House.
The Liberals have been in power for almost seven years. They
only have to shut down debate on any bill in the House five more
times and they will be tied with Brian Mulroney's all-time record
of 66 times. It took Mulroney nine years to stifle democracy 66
times. The Liberals are ahead and they are likely going to set
the record for being undemocratic.
1930
When closure was first used to end a debate it was done because
debate had gone on for 42 consecutive days. That is why closure
was required at that time.
The Liberals shut down the debate on the clarity bill after just
42 minutes. They shut down the debate on extending benefits to
same sex partners after just one hour and six minutes. They shut
down debate on the changes to the elections act, which I
described earlier, after just two hours and forty minutes. It
was an important bill and they let debate continue for only two
hours and forty minutes. It is unbelievable. It is shameful.
Stanley Knowles is turning over in his grave, I am sure. The
Liberals have learned nothing from Stanley Knowles.
We should have a Stanley Knowles day. We need to celebrate the
lives of those who have contributed so much to our country.
We can describe Stanley Knowles as a Canadian hero who stood for
democracy in the House, who was famous for standing for the
rights of elected members to debate anything they were supposed
to debate. He championed the rights of the people. He left his
mark on this place. It is important for future generations to
know that such a man existed.
It is encouraging for young Canadians to learn of the
accomplishments of a single Canadian who stood for the rights of
members to debate in the House, who stood for democracy in the
House. It is very inspiring for young Canadians. June 18, which
was his birthdate, falls within the school year. It is a good
time to establish this day, a day of remembrance and education.
I commend the hon. member for Churchill for introducing this
motion to remind the House and to remind the Liberals who are
asleep at the wheel that democracy is important. It will remind
them how important the Canada Elections Act is, which will allow
free and fair elections in this country. It will remind Liberals
that free debate should be allowed in the House without debate
being cut off, without turning this place into an anti-democratic
institution.
Therefore, I am glad to speak in support of the motion and I
wish the member the best of luck. I hope she succeeds and I hope
the Liberals will learn from Stanley Knowles.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Chairman, without a
shadow of a doubt, Stanley Knowles was a great Canadian
parliamentarian.
The fact that the House of Commons let him sit in the House to
hear our debates bears witness to the esteem that all parties
had for Mr. Knowles. It is not surprising, therefore, that
thought is now being given to having a day dedicated to his
memory. This is a most praiseworthy idea.
There are a few questions, however, that have to be asked before
commemorating an individual or an event.
First of all, what is the purpose of commemorating that
individual or event? Primarily, it is to call to mind the
values and principles we have been taught by that individual or
event.
Consequently, when there is a desire to commemorate an
individual, as there is today, it is important for the values
and principles that person defended to be evident to all. A
goodly number of Canadians and Quebecers might deserve having a
day dedicated to them. People distinguish themselves in all
areas of endeavour, be it the arts, business, teaching, science,
medicine or some other field.
Why are they not commemorated, despite their accomplishments?
Because they are not widely known, and the population as a whole
does not associate the values and principles they defended with
these individuals.
1935
Mr. Knowles was very well known to parliamentarians and to his
fellow Winnipeggers but, and this is regrettable, the average
Canadian or Quebecer has no idea of the values and principles
defended by Stanley Knowles. Therefore, in spite of all the
merits of Stanley Knowles, dedicating a day to his memory would
not help promote these values and principles.
These remarks are not meant to take anything away from Mr.
Knowles' exceptional career as a parliamentarian. That career
was indeed exceptional in more ways than one, and particularly
in terms of its length. After working as a typsetter and
printer, Stanley Knowles represented his fellow citizens in
parliament for 37 years, between 1942 and 1984. The figures tell
the tale: he was elected 13 times to the House of Commons.
His career is also exceptional in terms of his contribution to
the Canadian parliamentary system, which is a very topical issue
these days. Stanley Knowles thought and wrote about the role of
the opposition in this parliament. He also made a contribution
to the debate on the role of the Senate.
Stanley Knowles played a key role within his party, the New
Democratic Party, particularly when the NDP was founded to
replace the CCF, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, in
1961.
Stanley Knowles' exceptional contribution to Canadian democracy
was largely recognized in his home province of Manitoba, where
everyone knew him. In Winnipeg, a school and a park are named
after him.
His memory is also honoured in Brandon University, of which he
was chancellor for 20 years, from 1970 to 1990, with the Stanley
Knowles chair for political studies. Here in this House, he is
the only person ever to receive the title of honorary member of
the House of Commons. Stanley Knowles was also made an officer
of the Order of Canada in 1985.
Stanley Knowles made a remarkable contribution to Canadian
democracy. His exceptional contribution was recognized by
Canadians and they are grateful to him.
However, in spite of all his merits, to dedicate a day to
Stanley Knowles would not help promote his values and principles
among the public. It would not add anything to the political
stature of the man.
[English]
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is truly
an honour and a privilege for me to have this opportunity to rise
in the House to debate the motion that would see us commemorate
the wonderful life of Mr. Stanley Knowles by recognizing his
birthday on June 18.
I would also like to congratulate the hon. member for Churchill
for introducing this motion. She obviously shares my deep sense
of pride and respect, as do many Canadians, for the many
accomplishments of the late member for Winnipeg North Centre.
[Translation]
From what I have read and heard, Mr. Knowles worked very hard
for all Canadians. He worked particularly hard for the most
vulnerable members of society.
[English]
I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Churchill for
introducing this motion. It has allowed each and every one of us
to look back upon the life of a great Canadian. Mr. Knowles was
someone whose strength and determination helped forge a greater
Canada, one that we too often take for granted.
We often forget that many of the social programs we take for
granted today, such as employment insurance, old age security,
the guaranteed income supplement, the minimum wage and others,
were not readily available when Mr. Knowles began his long and
distinguished career back in 1942.
For more than 40 years Mr. Knowles was a member of parliament
who was instrumental in helping to convince the government of the
day to introduce and improve many of the social programs which
help Canada's most vulnerable citizens.
Mr. Knowles could understand and appreciate the struggles of
everyday people. He witnessed them firsthand during the Great
Depression while working as an ordained minister in the United
Church, watching senior workers being displaced by younger
workers during the depression without being provided with a
retirement pension plan. This convinced him to work toward the
elimination of injustices in the workplace.
1940
Mr. Knowles fought for employee pension rights. He fought for
better pensions for our seniors. He fought for better housing
and help for the homeless.
I find it rather ironic that today we are speaking of the late
Mr. Stanley Knowles. I say ironic because of Motion No. 8 which
was introduced in the House today. If Stanley Knowles were here
he would be appalled by what the government is doing to the fine
institution of the Parliament of Canada, limiting our abilities
as members of parliament to debate, to make amendments, to make
changes to legislation and to truly do what we are supposed to do
as parliamentarians. I am sure Mr. Knowles is spinning in his
grave.
[Translation]
I must admit that I was a bit surprised to learn that Mr.
Knowles' father came from Woods Harbour, which is just beside my
riding of West Nova. Mr. Knowles' ancestors came to Nova Scotia
in 1760 only five years after the deportation of the Acadians in
1755.
I am convinced that Mr. Knowles saw this as a great injustice
and was perhaps even influenced by the magnitude of this
tragedy. But this is only conjecture.
One thing is certain—Mr. Knowles loved to come to Nova Scotia to
visit his family.
Having lived in a small village the mainstay of which was
fishing, Mr. Knowles certainly had a unique perspective on the
differences and similarities with which the people of West Nova
must cope.
I think that Mr. Knowles would be shocked if he were to see the
terrible straits in which our fishery now finds itself. Like
us, he would be completely dissatisfied with the way the Liberal
government is ignoring the crisis in the fishery.
[English]
Mr. Knowles would be disgusted by the way the Liberal government
has handled the crisis in the Atlantic fishery. Like any
Canadian whose livelihood is being threatened by government
inadequacy or incompetence, I am certain that Mr. Knowles would
be using every possible trick in the book to focus attention on
this very serious problem.
Mr. Knowles was a master of parliamentary procedure. I am
certain he would have taken every possible opportunity to
highlight the plight of our Atlantic fishermen. He would have
recognized the correlation between the serious brain drain that
is going on in this country and the Liberal government's handling
of the Atlantic fishery crisis. He would recognize that this
Liberal government will ultimately destroy our fishery, forcing
more of our youth to head west in search of job opportunities.
According to the fisheries minister's press release which he
sent out last Friday, the Atlantic fishery produces some $1.3
billion in landed values. That is nothing to sneeze at.
Like our seniors and our most disadvantaged citizens for whom
Mr. Knowles fought so strenuously, I think our Atlantic fishermen
deserve the same protection against a Liberal government which
appears unable or unwilling to resolve the serious problems
affecting the industry.
Stanley Knowles was nothing if not tenacious in his pursuit of
social justice. He simply would not be deterred; not by his
initial failures at the polls where he lost in the federal
elections of 1935 and 1940, and then the provincial election in
1941, nor by the disintegration of his CCF party, which
ultimately transformed itself into today's New Democratic Party.
His message never seemed to change over the years. He continued
to preach his social gospel.
I take comfort in recognizing the huge accomplishments of Mr.
Knowles on behalf of all Canadians. I can see that his tenacity
has paid great dividends for the citizens of Canada and I am
determined to show some of the same tenacity as I continue to
represent the citizens of West Nova to the very best of my
ability.
I will draw attention to the serious crisis in the Atlantic
fishery. I will demand that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
address the terrible conditions of our local fishing wharfs which
his department is so determined to ultimately abandon as a
cost-cutting measure.
1945
A recent storm in my riding has left a number of our wharfs,
including the Delaps Cove, Parkers Cove, Hampton, Port Lorne,
Cottage Cove and Margaretsville in serious condition. Another
storm could wipe them out leaving our fishermen to fend for
themselves.
These fishermen need these wharfs for their livelihood. Their
communities need these wharfs because they provide an economic
boost to their local economies. They need these wharfs because
they share an important cultural component with members of their
own community as well as with the surrounding communities.
In speaking for our Atlantic fishermen, I cannot stress strongly
enough the importance of these wharfs to our communities.
Coming from a western province where agriculture is so important
to the local economy, I am sure Mr. Knowles would appreciate why
I have raised the serious plight of our farmers on so many
occasions in the House. After three consecutive years of drought
conditions, our West Nova farmers are struggling for survival,
just like our western counterparts.
The government's band-aid solutions fall far short of what is
needed to stabilize this vital industry. It is time that the
government started looking at long term, sustainable programs
that will seriously address the difficulties being experienced by
our Canadian farmers.
There is no question of the tremendous accomplishments of Mr.
Stanley Knowles. He has been recognized on many occasions for
his commitment to the Canadian people. For example, in 1979 our
leader and then prime minister, Mr. Joe Clark, appointed him
ceremoniously to the Privy Council of Canada to mark his 37th
anniversary in the House of Commons. In 1970 he became
Chancellor of Brandon University and in 1990 was designated
Chancellor Emeritus. He was awarded the Order of Canada in 1984.
His name appears on schools and school libraries and most likely
on a number of street signs.
I could go on and on. However, I am not totally convinced that
we should be recognizing a great Canadian on the date of his or
her birthday at the exclusion of many other great Canadians.
Somehow I prefer using days on our calendar to highlight great
Canadian achievements, events and organizations that otherwise
may not receive the recognition they so richly deserve.
Stanley Knowles has a special place in Canadian history. I
think his achievements would best be recognized through our
Canadian history books.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I agree with the
member for Churchill on two of her initial statements, the first
one being that I believe everyone in the House, regardless of
partisan affiliation, will recognize that Stanley Knowles was
indeed someone worthy of such consideration and was honoured by
the House, as the member herself mentioned.
I will now say a few words in tribute to Mr. Knowles as well. I
was fortunate enough to have been in the House for a bit of the
time while he was an honorary table officer. I think it is
fairly well accepted that Stanley Knowles was, first and
foremost, a man of the people. He was motivated by his concern
for the less fortunate, some of whom are still to this day
overlooked, and the undervalued members of our society. His
concern for the suffering of others was rooted, some argue, in
personal suffering close to home.
I will relate an incident in 1932 when his father, 57 at the
time, was laid off from his machinist's job when all employees
over 55 were deemed expendable by an efficiency consultant.
After many years of loyal service, the elder Mr. Knowles had no
severance, no unemployment insurance, no sick benefits and no
pension. One could argue that this episode in Mr. Stanley
Knowles' life was a benchmark event in his life and that it
helped fuel his committed drive to guarantee so many elements of
life that we today take for granted.
[Translation]
We also pay tribute to Mr. Knowles as a parliamentarian par
excellence. His exceptional presence still makes itself felt in
the House from time to time, when it is a question of balancing
personal conscience against public perception or expectations.
It is in this room that he has left his mark, and his
accomplishments are still celebrated today.
1950
A unique figure among Canadian parliamentarians, he had a very
rare privilege bestowed on him, having been given a seat at the
table, near the Chair, when he was no longer a member of
parliament. In fact, to this day, he remains the first and only
honorary officer of the House of Commons.
[English]
We agree on that but I wish we could have perhaps avoided some
partisan shots while we paid tribute to Mr. Knowles, but that is
another matter.
I also agree with the member for Churchill when she says that we
do not do enough in this country to recognize, acknowledge, teach
and transmit the knowledge of people such as Mr. Knowles to the
younger generations. I for one share that view and hope we will
find ways as we evolve as a society to do more of this. It is
important to make sure that the achievements of people like Mr.
Knowles are communicated to our younger people so that they can
get an appreciation of the values he represented.
Although I may not agree with her, as she may suspect, on
whether or not the course suggested to commemorate and pay
tribute to Mr. Knowles is the appropriate one, I would put some
ideas on the table as to why this may not be appropriate, without
demeaning the importance of Mr. Knowles, and perhaps put forward
some suggestions that she may wish to consider in another forum.
There is one concern that has been alluded to by two of the
opposition parties, and that is the phenomenon of too many people
being honoured. For instance, I did a very cursory check at the
Library before coming here. I picked three or four dates at
random and asked for information out of the current edition of
Canada's Who's Who, if you will—and we take that with a
grain of salt because it is only living people and it is
self-subscription to a certain extent—but on June 18 there are
two current parliamentarians, who happen to be in the other
place, who may or may not also qualify for a so-and-so day. How
do we decide that without bringing in partisanship or trying to
make it an extraction of partisanship?
On November 18, another date picked at random, would one want to
honour Knowlton Nash? I believe everyone knows Knowlton Nash.
Someone from western Canada may wish to honour Peter Pocklington,
or Margaret Atwood. They were all born on the same day but in
different years. One can see the complications that could arise
from that, and that is just a very cursory look at this.
Another example is March 28 where we have Marshall Cohan, a
fairly well-known executive; Robert Sculley, a fairly well-known
television personality; a fellow by the name of Paul David Sobey,
who is fairly well known in Atlantic Canada in the business
community; and we have Karen Kain.
I am just trying to give examples of the kinds of difficulties
we could get ourselves into. The final example would be January
26, where we have Roger Landry.
[Translation]
Roger Landry has just retired as a journalist for La Presse. He
was and still is a very important newsmaker in Canada.
Think of someone like Claude Ryan, who is also an important
Canadian newsmaker, or Wayne Gretzky. They were all born the
same day.
Understandably, it would be difficult for us to approve the
concept of an individual's day. And I did not name everybody.
It is not a matter of not wanting to recognize the value and
contributions of certain individuals, whether in the
parliamentary or education field, in the arts, business, the
media or sports.
We might want to consider other options, and we have been
thinking about it. The Order of Canada was created to recognize
and pay tribute to the contributions of a large number of
Canadians to our society, even if they were born on the same
day. Some thought was given to it in the House, in a way, on other
occasions. Perhaps this suggestion should be made to the House.
1955
It is rather delicate to ask the government to recognize a
parliamentarian. One might argue that it is the role of the
House, and that the House or parliament could find other ways,
here or elsewhere, to recognize the contribution of a great
parliamentarian.
We are not against the idea of celebrate the life of Stanley
Knowles. It is the way suggested here that is inappropriate. For
example, we have before us three similar measures.
There is a bill from the other place to designate a certain day
as Sir John A. Macdonald Day.
I think a member from the Progressive Conservative Party would
like a day to be designated as Samuel de Champlain Day.
Unfortunately, we are going to run out of days. There is limit.
Before designating days to honour so and so, we should find
other ways of doing it. I would like to make this suggestion to
my colleague opposite, despite what some other members opposite
might say.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Churchill. I
should advise the House that if she speaks now, she will close
the debate.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want
to thank all the members who have spoken tonight on behalf of
Stanley Knowles and his great accomplishments. I thank them for
the support.
I want to clarify a couple of areas. My colleague who just
preceded me indicated we could run out of days. The United
States of America recognizes Washington, Lincoln, Martin Luther
King and I think there may be one other politician in all their
years of history and they have not run out of days so I think in
Canada we are probably fairly safe. The United Kingdom has Guy
Fawkes Day and maybe the other odd one. I do not think that is
the real problem.
As parliamentarians we can get beyond the partisan aspect and
have support for parliamentarians who have done a great job. I
want to clarify it was intended that it would be parliamentarians
or politicians who would be recognized. So often all that is
ever recognized of politicians is any wrong that they may do.
Very few people will have a good thing to say about any
politician. There are very few of us who could honestly say that
we hear something good about us all the time. I think we can get
beyond that for parliamentarians who have done a great job such
as Stanley Knowles did. There may be others as well.
There is no question there are other ways of recognition. The
reason to recognize a day is that it becomes that day on the
calendar. Every time a child or an adult looks at the calendar
on that day, they will think of Stanley Knowles.
St. Jean Baptiste Day has been on the calendar for heaven knows
how long. We do not recognize it. We did not do anything with
St. Jean Baptiste Day where I grew up but we recognized it and we
learned about it and we understood it as we did other holidays
that get recognized. To me there is very great significance in
putting the day on the calendar and officially recognizing it.
The leader of the New Democratic Party said on Stanley's passing
that we have all lost a friend, one who fought with courage and
vigour for equality, for social justice and the dignity of all
Canadians. Stanley Knowles is a Canadian worth honouring.
He should be held in high esteem in our collective memories so
that we may never forget his integrity as a man and as a
politician.
I was very disappointed that the motion was not made votable. I
am going to take this opportunity to correct that wrong and ask
if I could have unanimous consent of the House to make it a
votable motion.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the
House that the motion be votable?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, I hope there will be
alternate ways that we can go about recognizing great
parliamentarians. I certainly intend to pursue them in the
future.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. As
the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the item is
dropped from the order paper.
[Translation]
It being 8 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10
a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 8 p.m.)