CONTENTS
Thursday, November 2, 1995
Bill C-61. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading 16107
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 125; Nays, 76 16107
(Bill read a third time and passed.) 16108
(Motion negatived.) 16108
Bill C-88. Resumption of consideration of secondreading of motion
and amendment 16110
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 16112
Division on motion deferred 16120
Bill C-103. Motion for third reading. 16120
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 16122
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 16130
Bill C-95. Motion for second reading 16130
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 16141
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 16143
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 16143
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 16144
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 16146
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 16146
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 16147
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 16147
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 16147
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 16147
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 16149
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 16150
Bill C-95. Consideration resumed of motion. 16150
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 16156
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 16157
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 16163
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 16164
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 16175
16107
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, November 2, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from November 1 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-61, an act to establish a system of administrative
monetary penalties for the enforcement of the Canada Agricultural
Products Act, the Feeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, the Health of
Animals Act, the Meat Inspection Act, the Pest Control Products
Act, the Plant Protection Act and the Seeds Act be read the third
time and passed.
The Speaker: It being 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 45,
the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division at
third reading stage of Bill C-61, an act to establish a system of
administrative monetary penalties for the enforcement of the
Canada Agricultural Products Act, the Feeds Act, the Fertilizers
Act, the Health of Animals Act, the Meat Inspection Act, the Pest
Control Products Act, the Plant Protection Act and the Seeds Act.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 364)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anawak
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bonin
Boudria
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
Maclaren
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Milliken
Minna
Murphy
Nault
O'Reilly
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Tobin
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Zed-125
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary-Southeast/Sud-Est)
Caron
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
16108
Grubel
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
St-Laurent
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)-76
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bouchard
Canuel
Ianno
Jacob
Jordan
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
McGuire
Plamondon
Thalheimer
Venne
(1025 )
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read a third time and passed.)
Mr. Chan: Mr. Speaker, if my plane had been on time I would
have voted with the government.
_____________________________________________
16108
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to two
petitions.
* * *
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I would like to seek the House's assent to change Motion
No. 473 for Motion No. 474 on the order of priorities for private
members' business. I seek the consent of the House in this.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Does the House give its
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The hon. member for
Calgary West has the floor on a point of order.
[English]
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Madam Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. If I understand the motion correctly, it is to not debate the
issue of the international laws that pertain to the recognition of
Quebec's right to self-determination. As it is obvious from the
statements from the Bloc that we will be debating this in the future,
we in the Reform Party believe it is important that Parliament,
which is representative of all of Canada, have a chance to debate
this issue. Therefore we will not agree to dropping this off the
Order Paper.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): We do not have unanimous
consent, therefore.
* * *
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I have the honour of presenting this petition on small and medium
size businesses.
[English]
Almost everyone knows that small and medium size businesses
in Canada are important to job creation and are important to the
quality of life of Canadians. These petitioners are simply
requesting that whenever governments make decisions that could
impact on small and medium size businesses they recognize the
importance they have for Canada in terms of jobs and in terms of
adding to the quality of life.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to table a petition from 33 Canadians in the
Prince Edward-Hastings area calling on Parliament to take steps
to keep the bovine growth hormone out of Canada by legislating a
moratorium on the use and sale of the bovine growth hormone until
the year 2000 and examining the outstanding health and economic
questions through an independent and transparent review.
(1035)
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from several
hundred persons, young people who are demanding that the
Canadian government amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to
include sexual orientation as the tenth illegal reason for
discrimination.
16109
I enthusiastically support this petition and trust that the
government will act it on expeditiously.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition that has
been circulating all across Canada. This portion of the petition has
been signed by a number of Canadians from Stratford, Ontario.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
an honourable profession, which has not been recognized for its
value to our society. They also state that the Income Tax Act
discriminates against families that make the choice to provide care
in the home to preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill
or the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that
decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have a petition from citizens of the city and county of
Peterborough. The petitioners state that whereas the name of Our
Lord Jesus Christ and the Lord's Prayer have been included in the
historic parliamentary prayer of the House of Commons since
1867; and whereas Canada was founded and built upon the
principles of Christianity and a large majority of Canadians profess
the Christian faith; therefore they call on the House of Commons to
close the parliamentary prayer with the words ``through Jesus
Christ our Lord, Amen'' and reinstate the Lord's Prayer at the
conclusion of the opening prayer.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have another petition from numerous citizens in eastern Ontario.
The petitioners point out that acts of discrimination against
lesbian, gay and bisexual Canadians are an everyday reality in all
regions of Canada and that this kind of discrimination is
unacceptable in a country known for its commitment to human
rights, equality and dignity for all citizens.
Therefore these petitioners call upon Parliament to act quickly to
amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination
on the basis of sexual orientation and to adapt all necessary
measures to recognize the full equality of same sex relationships in
federal law.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure
today to present a petition signed by 111 residents of Labelle
County in my riding.
The petition is about an issue that concerns many Canadians. It
asks Parliament to amend the Divorce Act by including a provision
identical to section 611 of the Quebec Civil Code, which provides
that parents cannot, without serious grounds, interfere with a
child's personal relationship with its grandparents and that if no
agreement can be reached by the parties, the terms of this
relationship shall be determined by the court.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, Question No. 239 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 239-Mr. White (Fraser Valley West):
Concerning CPC, for the most recent available 12-month period, (a) what
was the detailed cost breakdown of all expenditures on hospitality for customers
and other business clients, with particular reference to private boxes and season
tickets at professional sports stadiums and arenas, including expenditures paid
out through employee expense claims, and (b) what were the expense claims for
the top four Canada post executives in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Regina,
Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): As a commercial crown
corporation, Canada Post is not subject to the Access to
Information Act. The government made the decision to exempt
crown corporations such as Canada Post, in recognition of the
requirement that they operate in a competitive environment. The
Privacy Act also protects personal information from third party
access, these are deemed as commercially confidential.
[English]
Mr. Milliken: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
>
16110
16110
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from November 1, 1995, consideration of
the motion that Bill C-88, an Act to implement the Agreement on
Internal Trade, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): When the House last
considered Bill C-88, the hon. member for Joliette had 11 minutes
left.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Madam Speaker, when I had
to break off my speech yesterday to let the House proceed with the
Orders of the Day, I was discussing the actual impact of Bill C-88
and, more particularly, clause 9 of the bill.
The wording of clause 9 allows for a very broad interpretation.
For instance, the federal government would be able to intervene
and impose retaliatory measures even when it is not a party to the
dispute.
Although the Bloc Quebecois has always been in favour of free
trade and, in fact, we cannot do otherwise but support this concept,
when a clause like this one gives the federal government sweeping
powers, we must object to adopting the bill as tabled, or at least to
the wording of clause 9. In fact, this clause could lend itself to two
very different interpretations.
(1040)
One interpretation could result in the federal government's
giving itself powers, because of its obligation under the agreement
to have the option to impose retaliatory measures, in the event and
only in the event it becomes an aggrieved party. We believe clause
9 does not provide this. In fact, the first part of clause 9 reads as
follows:
(1) For the purpose of suspending benefits or imposing retaliatory measures
of equivalent effect against a province pursuant to Article 1710 of the
Agreement, the Governor in Council may, by order,-
So the federal government may intervene and impose a variety
of measures, which I will not read in their entirety, but will simply
summarize: suspend rights or privileges, modify the application of
any federal law; extend the application of any federal law to a
province or take any other measure it considers necessary.
As it stands, we could interpret the meaning. In the case where a
party is found to be in the wrong, under the terms of article 1710 of
the agreement, the federal government, whether it is a party to the
dispute or not, will be entitled to impose retaliatory measures
against the party in question. As we saw yesterday, the parties may
be a province, the federal government or any third party with close
ties to either the province or the federal government.
We also pointed out yesterday that, because of its spending
power, the federal government was already meddling in many areas
or activities that are strictly provincial in jurisdiction and already
had considerable latitude because of the way the parties were
defined. Because of the considerable latitude it already enjoys
under the definition of ``federal government'', it would be
superfluous to add more here and permit the federal government to
intervene even when it is not an aggrieved party. We believe this
interpretation is contrary to the intent of the agreement.
The agreement does not, in fact, provide that the federal
government may impose retaliatory measures against an injuring
party. It could do so only if it was recognized as an injured party in
this dispute.
The second possible interpretation of this provision, and the one
with which we might agree, is that if the federal government
wanted to retaliate against a party at fault pursuant to article 1710
of the agreement, it could do so only as the injured party in the
dispute.
If this is what this provision means, we might agree. However,
since the wording may be ambiguous and leave room for
interpretation, we would like to clarify this paragraph by amending
it so that if the federal government is recognized as a party injured
by a measure imposed by another party in violation of the
agreement, the governor in council may, by order and pursuant to
article 1710 of the agreement, take the measures as listed in clause
9. This is our first comment regarding clause 9.
(1045)
Another point I wish to raise is that the range of retaliatory
measures of which the federal government may avail itself
pursuant to clause 9 of the bill is much too broad.
By giving itself the power to modify or suspend the application
of any federal law with respect to the province, to extend the
application of any federal law to the province, or to take any other
measure deemed necessary, the federal government is granting
itself inordinate retaliatory powers that may affect the entire
population of a province. The problem is that the federal
government's legislative power affects all Canadians and that it
already imposes laws on the provinces. These powers are denied to
the provinces and we think in this case that, once again, this article
could allow the federal government to impose its will on the
provinces.
The federal government's retaliatory powers should be strictly
limited to the trade areas already defined in the agreement. So, if
we agreed on these restrictions, the federal government could no
longer retaliate in social areas and go after the Canada social
transfer, for example.
16111
For the Bloc Quebecois, this is another way of looking at this
article, which we regard as very important.
Finally, I would like to point out another controversial aspect of
this bill. Clause 14 of this bill deals with the powers of
appointment.
The governor in council may, by order, appoint any person to fill any position
that may be necessary or advisable, in the opinion of the governor in council, for
carrying out the purposes of the agreement.
Again, as in many other areas, the Bloc Quebecois thinks that
these appointments should be ratified by the House of Commons
instead of simply requiring an order of the governor in council. As
in the case of appointments to several important boards, which are
ratified by the House of Commons, we feel that-in this case
involving billions of dollars in interprovincial trade subject to this
act, this agreement-it is very important that all appointments be
made public and subject to some scrutiny by the House. In fact, we
ask that these appointments be made or suggested by the governor,
but that they be systematically ratified by the House of Commons.
Those are the three points I wanted to raise with respect to clause
9.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
happy to rise today to speak about the so-called agreement in Bill
C-88 on internal trade barriers.
This bill is a total sham and should never have been introduced
in the House. It has nothing to add to internal trade that is not
already in place in the BNA act. It does not even maintain the same
standard. Let me quote from section 121 of the BNA act. This is
what we had before: ``All articles of growth, produce or
manufacture of any one of the provinces shall be admitted free into
each of the other provinces''.
What do we have now under article 101 of this provincial trade
agreement? It states that the objective of the agreement is to reduce
and eliminate, to the extent possible, barriers to the free movement
of goods and services.
Is that not somewhat less than section 121 of the BNA act which
says shall be admitted free? Obviously it is. I am concerned that the
bill is like a Hollywood movie set. It looks good on the outside but
there is nothing behind it. There are no teeth in this agreement and I
have good reason to say that.
(1050)
I tested the bill. A company in my riding has a contract with CN
Rail to move its workers from Grand Prairie, Alberta into the
Dawson Creek area of B.C., some 60 miles away. What did the
company find? It cannot get a permit to go into B.C. It is being
restricted even though it has a contract to move its cabs into that
area.
We decided to test the new internal trade agreement. We asked
the Department of Industry and the Department of Foreign Affairs
and International Trade to get involved to see what they could do to
help this company resolve the problem. They can do absolutely
nothing.
This so-called trade agreement is nothing. It is just a loose
agreement of empty words. It certainly will not do anything to
address the problem of internal trade barriers which cost Canada
between $8 billion and $10 billion a year. We simply cannot afford
these kinds of costs. We are in a very competitive global trading
environment and we have to give our companies the ability to build
some economies of scale here at home before they launch into
international business.
Let us talk about international business for a moment. Canada
has signed some very good trade agreements internationally. We
have signed the new GATT agreement, the Uruguay round. We
have signed the NAFTA and previous to that the Canada-U.S. free
trade agreement. We have better international agreements for trade
than we have agreements for trade between the provinces. It is
absolutely ludicrous. To pretend that this bill addresses the problem
is just misleading the Canadian public.
The European Economic Community is now 15 member
countries. There are fewer barriers to trade between those 15
countries in the European Union than we have between the
provinces. Some decentralized federation. We need a workable
agreement between the provinces and the federal government has
to show leadership. That is what it involves. It must show
leadership and broker the kind of agreement that is necessary.
Obviously Bill C-88 does not do that.
Whole segments of the economy are not addressed in this bill. It
does not include agriculture. It does not include certain government
procurements or regional development. Those are all very
significant barriers to trade.
A good example of how silly the trade gets within this country
and the barriers we meet can be told in one simple example. A
trucking company in Alberta had a gravel contract nine miles from
the British Columbia border. It was working well within the
province of Alberta, but at the end of the day the drivers wanted to
drive their trucks into the nearest town to stay overnight in a hotel
and eat in the restaurants. They were not allowed to do so. Why
not? Because their trucks did not meet the requirements for the
regulations in British Columbia. They had to have different axle
spacings, an empty truck, certain permits they could not get
without considerable expense. They had to bring in a special
vehicle to take the workers into British Columbia to the hotel. That
is how ludicrous this gets.
16112
I suggest this is the type of situation there was in Russia some
10 years ago under communism. Surely we have to move beyond
that if we are going to be effective in the world economy.
Nothing has been resolved in the area of natural resources and
energy, all key areas of trade in Canada. The cost is estimated to be
$8 billion per year. We cannot afford those costs. We must have a
government that shows leadership and we certainly did not get it
here.
The Prime Minister said that this was a modest proposal. Modest
indeed. Most Canadians would see it as a complete waste of time
and money. I am appalled that the Minister of Industry would bring
this forward in the guise of a bill that is going to address the
problems of trade restrictions.
I would ask him to go back to the drawing board. Bring the
provincial premiers together. Bring the industry players together
and show them what is the cost to our society. Show them what is
the cost to their own industry. We can do much better. I challenge
this minister to do so.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I would like to remind the
House that we are now at the ten minute speech stage, with no
question or comment period.
(1055)
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Madam Speaker, first of
all, I would like to pay tribute to the people of my riding who have
voted yes in the referendum, in a proportion of 52.7 per cent, in the
provincial part of Shefford as well as in the Iberville part. In the
riding of Iberville, 56 per cent of voters said yes.
From the outset, you should know that I intend to continue
sitting in this House for the duration of my mandate as a member of
Parliament for the Bloc Quebecois.
This morning, I rise to speak on Bill C-88, an act to implement
the Agreement on Internal Trade. As you know, Quebec-and
Quebec members elected to this place in 1988-is responsible for
the passage of the Free Trade Agreement. Had it not been for
Quebec and its voters, Canada would have had a much harder time
entering into this agreement between Canada and the United States
that has greatly benefited both countries.
Quebec is a state which is open to the world. At present, and this
is very sad, it is easier for Quebec to trade with the U.S. than with
the rest of Canada because there was no legislation like this, and
that made interprovincial trade extremely difficult. As the Minister
of Commerce indicated, the difficulty came from the fact that
Canadian laws dated back to the 1940s and that there was an
unwillingness to evolve.
As I said a moment ago, Quebec trades mainly abroad, with the
United States of America becoming our main trading partner. We
also trade with the rest of Canada, although less and less as time
goes by, and our trade relations with the rest of Canada or our
provincial partners are also important.
Bill C-88 will normalize a situation that did not exist before.
Take clause 9 of the bill for instance, which we have a problem
with. It reads:
For the purpose of suspending benefits or imposing retaliatory measures of
equivalent effect against a province pursuant to Article 1710 of the Agreement,
made between the provinces
the Governor in Council may, by order, do any one or more of the following:
The fault we find with this bill is that, once again, the federal
government is taking pride of place. In the context of
federal-provincial relations, Canada has always taken pride of
place and retained the right of disallowance. In this case, penalties
could even be imposed instead of deferring to an arbitral tribunal,
as would normally be the case between states or provinces.
We totally disagree with Ottawa giving itself the kind of power
this legislation would afford it. As I said earlier, Quebec has always
been in favour of interprovincial trade in Canada.
What I cannot understand is why Canada manages its internal
trade the way GATT managed international trade in the late 1940s.
Mr. Manley himself, the current trade and commerce minister of
Canada, said so.
(1100)
The important thing to remember is that, in clause 9 of this bill,
the government gives itself a power to disallow and punish. We
also object to clause 14, which reads as follows:
14. (1) The Governor in Council may, by order, appoint any person to fill any
position that may be necessary or advisable, in the opinion of the Governor in
Council, for carrying out the purposes of the Agreement.
This provision means that, once again, Parliament will not have
a say regarding these appointments. The Liberals always talk about
reforms. They always say that they want to change the system. Yet,
when they introduce bills, we realize that this is impossible, that
the system cannot be changed and that there will not be any reform.
Once again, the governor in council has the privilege of making
appointments, without asking for Parliament's approval.
Sometimes, we wonder what we, elected representatives of the
people and regions of Canada, are doing here. We meet in this
House as representatives of the people and that, as you know, is a
costly process. However, when the time comes for the government
to place its confidence in our assembly and seek its approval, that
government bypasses the whole parliamentary process and makes
appointments through orders in council or departmental orders.
16113
If Canada is considering reforms, it must correct that situation
and give much more power to this Parliament. Canadians and
Quebecers are not stupid, you know. They are increasingly aware
of the fact that we do not make many decisions here; we just talk.
Everything is already decided, and this is what I strongly object
to. Reform members also denounce that situation, and this is to
their credit, even though we may disagree on what needs to be
done. We happen to think that we are a different country. We feel
that the chaotic situation in Canada could be corrected by making
some constitutional changes.
The ball is now in the court of the people opposite. What will
they do? Probably nothing. We will wait and see. We expect that
futile discussions will go on for the next 30 years, but I have to say
that we do not intend to stick around very long.
In conclusion, this bill provides once again the federal
government with the power to act alone and not consult the
provinces, something which is unacceptable. It is unacceptable
because, in a partnership-as trade relations should be-one side
cannot give itself the power to control everything.
Federalism will once again create difficult situations. This bill
will probably be passed without amendments, like several other
ones, thanks to the Liberal majority. By staying within the
Canadian federation, Quebec will have to suffer the consequences
of that legislation, which will increase the power of the federal
government, at the expense of the provinces.
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, here it is at least a year after the legislation was
introduced. It wends its way through the labyrinth of our political
process and finally finds itself back on the floor of the House of
Commons.
I thought I would be speaking to the bill yesterday so I thumbed
through November 1 in history. Of course today is November 2.
Interestingly Michelangelo completed his work on the Sistine
Chapel, but it only took him four and a half years. The legislation is
progressing apace, but no one will compare it with Michelangelo's
work on the Sistine Chapel.
(1105)
Actually to many observers it looks like a make work project.
Anyone who has given the matter even a modicum of thought
understands and appreciates how ludicrous it is in our country,
united from sea to sea to sea, that it is more difficult to trade
internally than it is to trade with any other trading partner we may
have in the United States or elsewhere in the world.
When the legislation was being put together and the debate
among provincial trade delegations was taking place, more people
were sitting around the table trying to break down the barriers of
interprovincial trade in our country than there were sitting around
the table when we were trying to break down the trade barriers with
the United States and to shape the North American Free Trade
Agreement.
We had a situation where we were hopefully to have a North
American Free Trade Agreement between Canada, the United
States and Mexico and there were less people sitting at the table
than when we were trying to break down internal trade barriers
within Canada.
How did we end up in that situation? How is that our country
ends up in a situation like that? Just a moment ago my hon.
colleague from the Bloc spoke. I have had the pleasure of spending
many hours in committee with the member listening to him defend
the unilateral interests of Quebec. I have never once, in the two
years that we have been here, heard him mutter one word about the
rights, the interests or the values of Canada as a nation. Every word
that has come out of the hon. member's mouth and the mouths of
all members of the Bloc has been directly related to Quebec, how
they can better the interests of Quebec.
The precise reason we have a problem in interprovincial trade in
our country is that we have a kind of parochialism about our
institutions. It is one of the primary reasons there is so much
discontent from coast to coast to coast. For years citizens of
Canada resident in the regions of Canada on the east coast, the west
coast, the prairies and the north were merely markets for the
manufacturing centres of central Canada in Montreal and southern
Ontario.
We now have an opportunity to break down trade barriers within
Canada, which would greatly strengthen the economic prospects of
all regions of the country, including the manufacturing heartland of
Ontario and Quebec. And what happens? We get around a table to
debate the opportunity to make our country better.
Canadians spent $1.5 million or so to have Professor Michael
Porter of the Harvard Business School do a study on Canada's
competitive situation in the world. Interested viewers may know
the same study or a study very similar to it could have been
obtained for $2,000 U.S. from the Harvard Business School video
series. It is exactly the same; it is on competitive strategies.
In any event this $1.5 million study has a recommendation at
page 98: ``Extend efforts to increase rivalry''. It is a well known
fact that to get a better product at a lower price we need
competitive situations; we need rivalry. Professor Porter in his
study asked how we were to be competitive internationally if we
were not first competitive at home. How are we to be competitive
at home if we have trade barriers that restrict competitiveness? It
just makes sense.
This reminds me of the situation we found ourselves in when we
entered into the free trade agreement with the United States which
16114
members opposite, I would remind them, fought so vigorously. By
and large members on this side and I were very much in favour of
it.
(1110)
An hon. member: They are born again.
Mr. McClelland: My colleague says that the Liberals are born
again. They are learning. Here they are in government embracing
the free trade agreement for the good of all. We are glad to see they
have learned the error of their ways.
How is it that we entered into a free trade agreement with the
United States, the most aggressive, strongest trading nation in the
world, and had not first broken down the internal trade barriers in
Canada? It is like getting into a fight with the biggest person in the
school yard and saying: ``I am going to fight fair. I am going to tie
one hand behind my back just to make it fair for you because you
are so big. Oh, by the way, just in case you think I might whip you,
even though I have one hand tied behind my back, we will have the
highest interest rates we have ever had, a high dollar, and we will
fight with you in a free trade environment''.
It was kind of like a Monty Python skit with the knight that had a
head and a torso but no arms or legs. He had the knife in his teeth
and was saying: ``Fight fair, fight fair. I can beat you''. That is what
we did. We prostrated ourselves by having high interest rates and
by having a high dollar, but most of all we had not broken down
trade barriers within Canada so that we would be more efficient
before getting into the free trade arena, the global trade arena in the
world we find ourselves in. It is absolutely essential the trade
barriers be broken down.
This speaks to the nub of the reason we are not supporting the
legislation. People would ask: ``How on earth can the member
speak so positively about the necessity, the absolute need to break
down trade barriers, and yet they will vote against the bill?'' The
reason is that the government has the responsibility to provide
leadership and to make sure we actually break down trade barriers.
We get together with the provinces and have months and months
of gumming this thing. Nothing happens. The disparity between the
provinces in the way they approach the issue is enormous. The fault
honestly should not be laid totally at the feet of the government
because the provincial governments are involved as well. When the
Alberta government came to the table to negotiate the free trade
agreement it had one page with one line on it, that there should be
no barriers to free trade in Canada. Our neighbouring provinces,
Saskatchewan and British Columbia, came to the same meeting
with a large stack to protect this, that and the other thing. Ontario,
as I am told, made significant concessions. Quebec had to protect
everything including the dairy industry and everything else it had.
This is where leadership comes into play, but the federal Liberal
government did not lead. Its mandate is to keep people at the table
to ensure laws are made to best accommodate the necessities of our
country in the future.
In conclusion I will point out what leadership is all about. The
Liberals will look at this era in history and hope that the writers and
history will look kindly at them. They will look kindly at them if
they seize the opportunity to make history, not to be carried along
by events and overtaken by them.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to have the opportunity this morning to speak to Bill C-88, an act to
implement the agreement on internal trade.
The piece of legislation is historic. With it we will be
implementing within the federal jurisdiction the obligations of the
federal government under the first comprehensive domestic trade
agreement in Canada since the British North America Act, 1867.
In the 128 years since 1867 the Canadian economy has grown
and evolved in ways never imagined by the Fathers of
Confederation. The federal government still has under section
91(a) of the Constitution responsibility for trade and commerce and
specifically interprovincial trade.
(1115 )
Since 1867 the world has changed significantly. The provinces
have assumed prominent roles as influencers of economic growth
and the regulation of trade and commerce within their respective
territories. As a result, trading arrangements and regulations have
developed in an ad hoc way often in response to a particular
regional need.
Many of those measures have, often unwittingly, created barriers
to trade as the impact on the free flow of goods, services, people
and capital within Canada. Such barriers can lead to the inefficient
use of resources and limit the ability of industry to take advantage
of the economies of scale and to maintain competitive market
positions. The result has often been to reduce the competitiveness
of Canadian business and to adversely affect the Canadian
economy.
There have been many examples of such impediments: different
professional and occupational standards in different jurisdictions
which limit labour and mobility between provinces; selective
listing policies by some provincial liquor boards that discriminate
against products from outside their provinces; different
transportation regulations, safety codes, inspection arrangements
and vehicle standards in each province which make it difficult for
truckers to cross provincial boundaries; government procurement
polices that give preference to local companies; provincial
incentive programs for industry development; and construction
procedures that differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. These are
some of the more
16115
common examples of barriers and impediments to interprovincial
trade and commerce as exist in Canada.
A recognition that the patchwork of regulations, standards and
other barriers to interprovincial trade which have grown around us
was an unacceptable feature of the domestic market in Canada. It
led governments to agree to negotiate the agreement on internal
trade. Growing concern and evidence that these barriers to trade
seriously affected our ability to remain competitive in the
international trading environment fuelled the urgency of
establishing a new trade regime in Canada: one based on more
interprovincial trade; one that would not impede the movement of
people and investment within the country; and one that would
allow for co-operative approaches to the resolution of domestic
trade disputes.
Bill C-88 represents the federal government playing its part in
doing just that. This bill establishes the framework that will allow
us to continue to work to create a trading regime that will remove
barriers to interprovincial trade in goods and services; that will
reduce impediments to the movement of workers and investment
capital between provinces; and that will provide a forum for the
resolution of individual trade disputes without resorting to the
courts.
The process leading up to this bill has been a long one. It has
involved many people and considered many issues and
perspectives. In addition to the federal, provincial and territorial
governments at both the ministerial and official levels,
representatives of the private sector have been actively involved in
the process.
Representatives of the private sector and of business interests in
particular, have kept the pressure on us at all levels of government
to deal with the problems of interprovincial trade barriers and the
consequential economic costs to Canada. The Canadian
Manufacturers Association has estimated that barriers to trade in
our domestic market cost the Canadian economy over $7 billion
annually in job and income loss.
There has been a long and thorough process under way to
identify problem areas and to develop practical, workable
solutions. A key characteristic of the process has been the spirit of
co-operation which all the parties involved have demonstrated. In
fact, the agreement on internal free trade is an outstanding example
of what can be accomplished within a co-operative framework in
Canada.
It is also important to note that political parties of all stripes and
all regional perspectives have been part of the process.
One fundamental point agreed on by all the parties in the
negotiation process is a recognition that a more open trading
environment will be good for Canada.
While the process was of long duration, it was characterized by
co-operation and a sense of shared mission. The agreement
represents a major step toward our shared objective of improving
the domestic trading environment and to eliminating barriers to
trade, investment and labour mobility in Canada.
The agreement on internal trade provides for the following: a
rules based system for trade within Canada; a dispute settlement
mechanism to resolve issues on internal trade matters; a standstill
on new barriers; commitments to future negotiations to broaden
and deepen the agreement; a code of conduct to prevent destructive
competition from investment; increased labour mobility; and a
commitment to reconcile standards related measures. These are
significant achievements.
(1120)
A key part of this agreement, indeed a key part of any trade
agreement, is in how it resolves disputes. This agreement
represents a unique solution to our unique Canadian circumstances.
It has a made in Canada solution and it provides the basis for
promoting compliance through consultation and co-operation
rather than by resorting to more formal court based procedures. It is
built on rules that draw on established concepts in the international
trading environment, but has been refined for use in a Canadian
context.
In the international trading environment there are several
examples of accords and agreements which set out rules for trading
between nations. There are many, many different models for
settling disputes and achieving compliance. Well known examples
include the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, commonly
known as GATT, and now the new World Trade Organization, the
WTO, the European Union and the North American Free Trade
Agreement.
There have been suggestions that we in Canada should just use
one or another of these models in the Canadian situation. These
suggestions overlook the important issue of the sovereignty of the
parties to an agreement, as well as the degree of political control
that the parties themselves are willing to give up to a compliance
mechanism.
In the case of the European Union for example, the central
authority is supreme over that of the individual member countries.
The European Union accord is a comprehensive agreement which
gives the central governing authority the overriding power to
propose and enact legislation that applies to all parties. That system
is based on a legislative and judicial framework, so that a business
firm or an individual who feels aggrieved by an action under the
law of a particular nation can bring the case to the European Union
council as the supreme authority.
16116
Thus the parties to the European Union agreement have
relinquished their sovereign authority in particular areas of trade
law, competition policy and government support for industry and
have agreed to accept a formal dispute settlement mechanism with
the power to enforce decisions. If we applied this model to
Canada, it would mean that the federal government would exercise
authority over all the other jurisdictions. I wonder if those who
recommend the European model are aware of that.
The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, GATT, offers a
different model. Under GATT, member nations do not relinquish
sovereign authority and disputes are brought forward by a
sovereign government representing its national interest. Disputes
are referred to an ad hoc panel that can recommend that a trade
policy or course of action be changed, but the recommendation
cannot be enforced in law. Thus parties to GATT retain their
sovereign right to enact and enforce laws within their own country,
but do not have recourse to an enforcement mechanism to change
non-compliant behaviour outside their own boundaries.
The North American Free Trade Agreement is closer to the
GATT model in that sovereignty remains within the national
government of each state and disputes are brought forward by
governments to the NAFTA commission, which is made up of the
responsible ministers of each country who will set up a panel to
consider specific disputes.
Whereas parties to the NAFTA retain sovereign authority with
respect to enacting and enforcing national legislation, they have
agreed to accept the authority of the NAFTA commission to
administer retaliatory measures on behalf of aggrieved parties as
enforceable sanctions. Thus, under NAFTA, parties remain
sovereign states but have effectively ceded some of their
sovereignty.
While all of these models have useful elements, none was
applicable to the Canadian situation.
The internal trade agreement created a committee on internal
trade to oversee its implementation and continuing operation. All
governments who are party to the agreement, that is the federal,
provincial and territorial governments, are members of the
committee.
The committee will be supported by a secretariat which is to
provide administrative and operational services. Part of the
mandate of the committee is to assist in the resolution of disputes
arising out of interpretations and applications of the agreement.
The working philosophy of the committee and of the agreement
is to use consultation and conciliation in dispute resolution.
Disputing parties will be encouraged to make every attempt
through co-operation, consultations and other forms of dispute
resolution to arrive at a solution.
I would suggest that Bill C-88 should be supported by all
members of this House. It is a progressive measure, a progressive
law. It will be good for the country. It will be good for the
constituents of Erie riding which I represent.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
speaking today on Bill C-88, an act to implement the agreement on
internal trade.
(1125)
As we are aware, the federal government must implement that
agreement through Parliament. There are a number of points
covered in this bill: the process for appointment of a federal
representative to the Committee on Internal Trade; payment of the
federal government's share of expenditures associated with
operating the secretariat; the power of the governor in council to
suspend, in special cases, the benefits granted under the agreement.
Also, no private course of action may be taken based on the text or
its implementing orders, nor the dispositions of the agreement,
other than specific exceptions, without the consent of the Attorney
General of Canada. Here are a few more: retaliatory powers where
the federal government is an injured party; changes in certain
federal legislative texts to bring them in line with the agreement,
such as the Financial Administration Act, the Crown Liability and
Proceedings Act, the Interest Act and the Motor Vehicle Transport
Act.
The role of the Committee on Internal Trade is to supervise
implementation of the agreement and to facilitate dispute
settlement. This bill ensures equal treatment of individuals, goods
and businesses, regardless of their origin within Canada. It
harmonizes standards and regulations in order to eliminate certain
practices which might present an obstacle to interprovincial trade.
It calls for the free movement of individuals, goods and capital.
The eleven sectors covered by the agreement are public
contracts, investments, labour mobility, consumer measures and
standards, agrifood products, alcoholic beverages, natural resource
processing, communications, transportation, energy, and
environmental protection. These various sectors are affected to
varying degrees.
Retaliatory measures may be taken by the injured party against
the party does not comply with the agreement. A party may be a
province, a territory or the federal government.
The main purpose of Bill C-88 is to implement the Agreement on
Internal Trade. As other members of my party have already said,
the Bloc Quebecois has always supported free trade, both internally
and internationally. Consequently, we support the principle of this
bill, and I must say I never understood why trade barriers existed
between the various provinces in Canada.
16117
I may point out that I object to the wording of clause 9 which
provides that:
For the purpose of suspending benefits or imposing retaliatory measures of
equivalent effect against a province pursuant to Article 1710 of the Agreement,
the Governor in Council may, by order, do any one or more of the following:
It could be interpreted to mean that the federal government may
intervene and impose retaliatory measures even when it is not a
party to the dispute. Through this bill, Ottawa acquires a
mechanism for imposing sanctions on the provinces. In fact, the
federal government could impose all kinds of sanctions, including
a reduction in transfer payments for provinces that do not abide by
the agreement. This new intrusion by the federal government is
unacceptable.
I said the Bloc Quebecois supports free trade both internally and
internationally. I would like to comment briefly on NAFTA and
continental free trade in the Americas.
At the summit meeting attended by presidents and government
leaders in Miami, in December 1993, there was some discussion of
this topic, and it was decided to expand NAFTA to include all
countries in the three Americas in the largest free trade zone ever,
from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego.
(1130)
The first country to sign this free trade agreement after the
United States, Canada and Mexico will be Chile, and I fully and
strongly support the decision of Chile, my country of birth, to
become a member of NAFTA. The Bloc Quebecois has done so as
well. Everything was in place for Chile to become a member of
NAFTA on January 1, 1996, but unfortunately, the fast-track
legislation was not passed by the U.S. Congress, and there will be
no quick negotiations as planned. It will take several months more
before Chile can sign this agreement.
I would also like to say that, although I am in favour of free trade
zones, including NAFTA, I am very critical of the agreement,
especially its lack of a social dimension, although a parallel
agreement on labour was adopted and a secretariat is starting to
operate in Texas with officials from all three countries. Last March,
I attended a conference in San Juan, Puerto Rico, to discuss the
social aspects of NAFTA with participants from Mexico, Puerto
Rico, the United States, Canada and Quebec. We noticed, as I do
now, that unfortunately there has been very little debate in this
Parliament and in Canada as a whole on the impact of NAFTA on
workers. I found that unions do not play a role at all in the
operation and administration of NAFTA.
Having lived in Europe for a number of years, I am familiar with
the European integration process. I found that Europeans had more
social concerns. Their treaty, for example, contains provision for
the creation of a special fund to assist workers affected by the
European common market; a social charter, containing principles
and provisions protecting workers, and an economic and social
council where employers and workers may meet to discuss
European integration.
Unfortunately, NAFTA contains no provision for minimum
working standards, except in three areas: minimum standards must
be met in health and safety on the job, child labour is prohibited,
and each country in NAFTA must comply with its minimum salary
legislation. No standards are set, however, for the three countries.
There is no standardization in either social or labour terms.
Provision could have been made for the inclusion of international
labour standards in NAFTA, such as the convention on the right to
unionize, unrestricted collective bargaining and the right of
association. NAFTA contains no provision on the free movement of
labour and nothing to protect immigrant workers. International free
trade agreements must contain a social element, just as this social
element must be included in free trade or common market
agreements.
[English]
Mr. George S. Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the agreement on
international trade came into effect on July 1. Bill C-88 is intended
to make it possible for the federal government to comply fully with
its obligations under the agreement. I therefore believe that it is
important for the House to proceed expeditiously in its
consideration of Bill C-88.
(1135)
For years, business and private sector groups have complained to
both the federal and provincial governments about domestic trade
barriers and impediments to a free and open internal market.
Numerous studies going back as far as the 1940 Rowell-Sirois
commission have recognized the issue and documented the broad
scope of the problem.
The Canadian Manufacturers' Association in 1991 estimated the
cost associated with barriers and economic inefficiencies to be
approximately $6.5 billion annually. The most recent Statistics
Canada figures indicate that interprovincial exports of goods and
services in 1990 were worth $141 billion annually and responsible
directly or indirectly for 1.7 million jobs.
A recent study by the chamber of commerce underlined the fact
that the Canadian internal market is the most interdependent of any
area in the world. In agreeing to negotiate the agreement, Canadian
governments recognized that how well our domestic economy
works is key to how we will prosper as a nation and how we will
compete in the international economy. An open domestic market
and economy will allow Canadians and Canadian companies to
strengthen their international competitiveness and develop new
opportunities to grow and prosper. The alternative offers only an
16118
ultimately self-destructive protectionism that benefits only a few
special interests at the cost of the country as a whole.
When they agreed to negotiate the agreement on internal trade,
the federal, provincial, and territorial governments all recognized
and accepted the importance of working together in the national
interest. In concluding the agreement, Canadian governments have
demonstrated that they are prepared to work together, both now and
in the future.
As the Minister of Industry has said in the House, the agreement
is a consensual agreement. Some members opposite have criticized
the agreement as inadequate and insufficient. The agreement may
not be perfect, but it represents an improvement from where we
were before. It reflects a consensus on the principle of an open and
efficient national economy. It establishes a detailed rules
framework for internal trade and it provides a consistent and
defined process for preventing and resolving disputes that may
arise over specific issues or measures.
All the parties have accepted to a greater or lesser degree
disciplines that in the sectors covered will improve how the
national economy functions in the future. It will be possible, indeed
it is the government's intention, to work to improve the agreement
in the future and to expand its scope and coverage. For the moment
it is a start, a point from which to start to work. We can and we
should build on that.
Some members have also criticized the government for not
exercising its constitutional authority over interprovincial trade to
open an internal market more forcibly. The national economy has
become considerably more complex than it was when the
constitutional powers of the different levels of governments were
first agreed to in 1867. In the context of today's economy and
modern Canadian federalism, the views of these critics are, frankly
speaking, simplistic.
If anything is clear it is that a country operates most successfully
when all levels of government work co-operatively in the national
interest, not unilaterally and certainly not by fiat. Governments
were not negotiating constitutional change in the agreement on
internal trade. Rather, they were developing the basis of working
together with their respective powers and responsibilities to make
the national economy work more effectively and efficiently.
Unilateral action may be theoretically possible as a method to
achieve the same ends. Some may consider it to be a desirable way
of proceeding. However, it is simply not an effective or acceptable
way to make Canadian federalism work.
Some members opposite have suggested that the government has
a hidden agenda on Bill C-88, that it conceals a power grab and is
intended to provide a means to force provinces to the will of the
federal government. That is purely and simply wrong. The Minister
of Industry has responded at length and in detail to those
allegations. I will not dignify them with further comment. Those
should preclude even the most obtuse interpretation of the bill's
language.
(1140 )
Bill C-88 does not deal with the responsibilities of the provinces
or provincial measures, only federal responsibilities and measures.
It is intended only to make it possible for the federal government to
comply fully with its obligations under the agreement and to play
its part in making the agreement work.
Bill C-88 gives the government specific authority or makes
changes to certain pieces of legislation to enable it to act in
accordance with its obligations. It also changes some existing
legislation to make it easier for provinces to comply with some of
their specific obligations under the agreement.
The Minister of Industry has indicated in a response to his
provincial counterparts and to Senator Roberge that he intends to
propose one or two amendments to Bill C-88 when it is considered
in committee. I expect those will remove the grounds for
misinterpretation or misrepresentation that some have made of the
government's intentions.
We should be clear in our understanding that Bill C-88 does not
by itself legislate or give life to the agreement on internal trade.
The agreement has already been signed by the parties-the federal,
provincial, and territorial governments. When it came into effect
July 1 all those governments became bound by the obligations they
accepted when they signed the agreement.
Each government is responsible itself for complying with its
obligations and for living up to its responsibilities under the
agreement. At the annual premiers conference this summer the
provincial premiers and territorial leaders renewed their
commitment to the agreement and to removing barriers. Two
provinces, Alberta and Newfoundland, have already passed their
implementing legislation.
As I said earlier, I believe it is important that we on the federal
side proceed expeditiously in our consideration of this legislation.
The federal government has played a leading role in getting all
governments to work together in the interests of all Canadians on
international trade issues.
Bill C-88 does what is necessary to ensure the federal level of
government will be able to continue to play its role in the
co-operative intergovernmental process. We should not delay it
further.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I want to speak for a few minutes
on Bill C-88 and look at some of the allegations that have been
made in previous debates by some members about Bill C-88 and
the
16119
unwarranted concerns those allegations may have engendered in
other quarters.
The opposition's allegations about Bill C-88 stem from an
inability or an obstinate unwillingness to understand the plain
meaning of the text of the bill. The Minister of Industry responded
in detail to those allegations in this House in May and in June. I
will refer to some of the points that need repeating.
Only in rare cases would the federal government be a
complainant in a dispute under the agreement on internal trade. If a
dispute were resolved in favour of the federal government and if
the province involved refused to comply with the impartial panel's
findings, the federal government could withdraw benefits of
equivalent effect.
Such retaliation would have to be in the same sector as the
original violation or in another sector covered by the agreement.
Retaliation could not involve-and I think this is
important-transfer payments or social programs because those
things are not covered by the agreement.
Bill C-88 does not make the federal government the policeman
of the agreement on internal trade, as the opposition mistakenly
insists. Any careful reading of the headnotes to clause 9 of Bill
C-88 and article 1710 of the agreement on internal trade, combined
with a minimum of logical reasoning, immediately gainsays the
wild allegations that have been made.
It is important to stress that Bill C-88 deals only with what the
federal government must do to live up to its obligations under the
internal trade agreement and nothing else. Notwithstanding the fact
that the concerns expressed were totally unwarranted and clearly
tactically motivated, the Minister of Industry has spent some time
in committee and in other places speaking to the amendments in
Bill C-88.
(1145)
I will reaffirm the fact that to date, Alberta and Newfoundland
have passed legislation to implement the agreement and to comply
with their respective obligations under it. Since tabling Bill C-88 in
the House on May 1, in the cold light of day the actual substance of
the bill has proven to be uncontroversial and designed only to
enable the federal government to comply with its obligations under
the agreement on internal trade and to meet the negotiated
commitments, both legal and moral, to the other parties to the
agreement, that is, the provinces and the territories.
There is so much one can say in support of this bill. I want to
stress the fact that this straightforward consideration of the bill has
been more or less reaffirmed in the discussions and debates which
have taken place. It is important to note the urgency of what we are
asking now. The passing of Bill C-88 is important to underscore
the federal part in ensuring the agreement is implemented.
This is a historic piece of legislation. It will allow the federal
government to continue to play a lead role in concert with the
governments of the other parties to the agreement. It is also
intended to implement the first comprehensive domestic trade
agreement in Canada since the British North America Act in 1867.
In the 128 years since 1867 the Canadian economy has grown
and evolved in ways never imagined by the fathers of
Confederation. The federal government still has constitutional
responsibility for interprovincial trade and commerce, but
successive governments as a matter of policy have chosen to work
co-operatively with the provinces to address internal trade
problems.
Barriers and impediments to internal trade lead to the inefficient
use of resources. They limit the ability of industry to take
advantages of economies of scale and to maintain competitive
market positions. The result is to reduce the competitiveness of
Canadian business and to adversely affect the Canadian economy.
It is incumbent on all Canadian governments to work together to
make the national economy work as effectively and efficiently as
possible so that all Canadians can enjoy the benefits of strong
economic development, growth and prosperity. I call on all
members to look at this straightforward legislation which will
provide the needed facility as we work together to provide the kind
of environment needed by our businesses.
We have sought to work co-operatively. The whole process
which produced the agreement is testament to that. Our approach
has been one which speaks to the fact that we are a truly
responsible Canadian government. As a truly responsible Canadian
government we can take those working arrangements between
provinces into the future. I call on hon. members to give their
support.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
16120
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Call in the members.
(1150 )
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45(7), the chief government whip, with the agreement of the
whips of all recognized parties, has requested that the division on
the question now before the House be deferred until Monday at 6
p.m., at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded
for not more than 15 minutes.
* * *
Hon. Michel Dupuy (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved
that Bill C-103, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Income
Tax Act be read the third time and passed.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to introduce for third
reading Bill C-103, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the
Income Tax Act, a measure in support of Canada's magazine
industry.
Canadian periodicals are a vital element of our cultural
expression. They provide news and information, critical analysis,
informed discourse and lively dialogue, all of which contribute to
our sense of identity as Canadians.
In cultural terms, the Canadian magazine industry is a
flourishing sector with over 1,300 titles available from over 1,000
publishers. The editorial pages of Canadian magazines contain
ideas and information that are the page equivalent of 2,500 books
per year.
[Translation]
Magazines reach specialized audiences not accessible to the
other media, such as newspapers and television. They target new
audiences and give them an opportunity to speak, thus creating a
bond between readers who share similar ideas. Clearly, they offer
very significant cultural advantages to a society as scattered and
disparate as our own.
Canadian magazines also provide writers and artists with a
means of expression. About 92 per cent of the editorial content of
Canadian periodicals is produced by Canadian writers employed by
these periodicals or working for them on a freelance basis.
Canadians are also responsible for over 92 per cent of illustrations
and photographs.
Canadians have access to a wide array of Canadian periodicals,
from current affairs magazines like L'Actualité and Maclean's, to
special interest publications in areas such as the arts, science and
leisure, to general interest magazines aimed at a wide audience.
Some of these publications are academic in nature while others
are low circulation magazines whose openness to experimentation
in the arts and literature leads to cultural renewal.
The first Canadian periodicals were created in Nova Scotia at the
end of the 18th century by immigrants from New England. The
history of periodicals in Canada follows that of many writers,
artists and merchants. It has led to the conception of innovative
ideas, to the creation of original visual images, and to the
emergence of new forms of cultural expression.
More importantly, the history of periodicals in Canada is also a
political saga in which individual interests have survived in an
environment dominated by foreign interests.
(1155)
For the government, the challenge has always been to strike a
balance between preserving Canada's cultural autonomy and
allowing the free flow of ideas.
[English]
The factors that define the environment in which Canadian
publishers compete for Canadian readers include: the impact of
foreign magazines on the market; the relatively small size of the
Canadian population; the difficulties and cost of distribution over
our huge territory; the openness of Canadians to foreign cultural
products; the effects of the cover prices of imported magazines on
the Canadian price structure; news stand competition from foreign
magazines; and the impact of overflow advertising on the potential
advertising market in Canada.
In addition, today's tough financial and fiscal environment takes
its toll. In 1992 for example, more than half of Canadian magazines
had no operating profits. The average operating profit for the
industry as a whole was only 2.36 per cent. The success of the
Canadian magazine industry can be better described as cultural
rather than financial. Canadian publishing ventures of all types
have been sustained by the creativity of writers and publishers and
the interest of readers.
Magazines must build and maintain their readership over the
long term. Also essential to their survival are advertisers. Canadian
magazines depend on advertising for 65 per cent of their revenue.
[Translation]
The government's policy concerning the Canadian magazine
industry is to encourage Canadian businesses to advertise in
Canadian periodicals and in periodicals whose content is original
rather than recycled, and to help publishers reach their market.
Since 1965, two measures have helped inject advertising
revenues into the Canadian magazine industry. These two measures
are customs tariff 9958, which prohibits the importing of split run
periodicals, and section 19 of the Income Tax Act, which permits
the deduction of the costs of advertising directed at the Canadian
market, provided this advertising is placed in Canadian editions of
Canadian owned or controlled periodicals.
16121
In April 1993, the arrival of Sports Illustrated Canada in our
newsstands marked the beginning of a new way of dealing with the
Canadian market for the American magazine industry.
[English]
Sports Illustrated Canada was able to sidestep tariff code 9958
by electronically transmitting the main editorial content from the
United States to a printer in Canada instead of physically importing
the split run edition into Canada. Domestic ads were substituted for
foreign ads and some original content was added to the existing
editorial content. Thus, Sports Illustrated Canada demonstrated
that the tariff code was no longer completely effective in dealing
with split runs.
This new development underscored the need to update the
legislative measures in place to support this vital sector of our
cultural industry. It has been asserted that Investment Canada Act
guidelines announced in July 1993 effectively foreclosed the
possibility of any further split runs in the Canadian market. These
guidelines however, can only apply to businesses in Canada. As we
have seen with Sports Illustrated Canada, the publisher does not
need a place of business in Canada in order to publish split runs in
our country. Hence, Bill C-103.
(1200 )
First, an amendment to the Excise Tax Act will impose an excise
tax on split run editions of periodicals attributed in Canada.
Second, an amendment to section 19 of the Income Tax Act will
add an anti-avoidance rule relating to the deductibility of
advertising. This will ensure that newspapers and periodicals that
purport to be Canadian are in fact Canadian owned and controlled.
These are measures that will level the playing field for the
Canadian magazine industry. That is fair. It is our responsibility to
ensure that the Canadian magazine industry can compete for ad
dollars.
[Translation]
The task force on the Canadian magazine industry was set up
because the Sports Illustrated Canada case had demonstrated that
the existing legislation could be circumvented. And I would like to
clarify an important point here.
The problem does not rest with the general idea of publishing a
sports magazine in Canada. It has to do with advertising revenues.
The fact that a split run edition of Sports Illustrated Canada was
sold in our newsstands shows that split run editions can enter the
Canadian advertising market in spite of the existing legislation.
The task force set about its task in April 1993. Its mandate was to
find sound and practical ways to ensure that the federal policy of
assistance to the Canadian magazine industry would remain
effective.
Task force members had an extensive knowledge of and
experience in the Canadian magazine industry. There were
members from every region of the country, including advisors
working for the advertising industry or the Consumers' Association
of Canada, representatives of the Canadian magazine industry and
international trade experts.
This group of highly competent individuals carried out their task
superbly. Not only did they provide us with an in-depth and
up-to-date analysis of the Canadian magazine industry, but they
also demonstrated the need to update existing legislative
instruments governing the Canadian magazine industry.
[English]
We have relied on the advice of the task force because it
examined closely all possible options. For example, the task force
concluded that split runs could lead to a possible loss of 40 per cent
of the industry's advertising revenue. That is $200 million
annually.
Fiscal concerns ruled out establishing an industrial support
program of such magnitude. The proposed tax is the most
reasonable and practical structural measure. At 80 per cent, the tax
can effectively achieve its objective of encouraging original
content.
The task force concluded that the adoption of an excise tax
measure that encourages ad revenues to flow to periodicals
containing original editorial content in magazines would be the
best way to assist Canada's magazine industry in a manner
consistent with our trade obligations. By promoting original
content, the tax will also ensure that all publishers are competing
on a more even footing for Canadian advertising revenue.
A number of questions and concerns have been raised during the
debate on Bill C-103. I would like to take this opportunity to
address some of them.
It has been suggested that Canadian magazine publishers should
take advantage of the opportunities provided by the free trade
agreement and sell into the United States. American popular
culture is part of the every day life of Canadians and so the editorial
content of American magazines is generally of interest to
Canadians. The reverse is not true. Canadian popular culture and
Canadian issues are not part of the every day life of Americans.
(1205)
To succeed in the United States, Canadian magazines would
have to change their editorial content to such an extent they would
no longer be Canadian magazines.
The question has been raised whether the proposed excise tax is
a valid use of the federal taxation power. Let me assure the House
that Bill C-103 is a valid exercise of the federal taxation power. The
measure is of general application, since it will apply to any split run
16122
edition distributed in Canada. Tax measures are not always solely
for the purpose of raising revenue. Tax measures may also be used
for other economic and social objectives.
Examples are the tax treatments of RRSP contributions and the
child tax benefits.
[Translation]
Finally, to those who criticize such a tax because of its
discriminatory nature, I say that this tax measure would apply to
any split run edition, whether produced by a Canadian publisher or
a foreign one.
With Bill C-103, the government's objective is not to limit
access to foreign magazines, but to preserve a market in which
Canadian publications can do well in our country and continue to
be sold alongside foreign magazines.
The federal policy of supporting the Canadian magazine industry
has been in place for a long time and remains unchanged. In fact,
Bill C-103 reinforces that policy by adapting it to the new reality.
This legislation will enable the industry to meet the challenges
created by technological changes, such as those which have
resulted in the split run edition phenomenon in Canada.
An open and stable structure for transborder exchanges is one of
the greatest assets for our country. In a huge and diversified world
market, with globalization increasingly prevalent, our culture
allows us to be different from the other countries. As a government,
the challenge is, as always, to maintain efficient policies and policy
instruments that will promote cultural development. We must also
seek to achieve a balance between the sometimes competing
interests of our foreign trade, on the one hand, and the preservation
of our cultural identity, on the other.
[English]
Bill C-103 meets those important objectives. Canadians value
who they are as a people and as a country. They want and deserve
access to cultural products that mirror the Canadian experience and
outlook, to give Canadians what they want and deserve, means
ensuring that our cultural industries remain healthy.
It is not enough to say, for example, that the circulation of the top
Canadian magazines has increased while the circulation of the top
U.S. magazines in Canada has decreased. The reality is that
Canada's top magazines are up against the combined force of the
much larger number of American magazines in circulation.
In conclusion, the 1970s and the 1980s saw an unprecedented
explosion of cultural activity which produced a broad range of
Canadian artistic products. During this time Canadians continued
to define themselves and their values in a uniquely Canadian way.
[Translation]
The federal government has taken several measures to increase
the share of the internal market held by Canadian cultural products,
and to improve the ability of Canadian artists and cultural
industries to create and market their products in our country. In the
nineties, the Canadian cultural policy expanded, so as to include
many new components. This complexity is the result of market
globalization, as well as the extraordinary development of our
artistic and cultural activities.
(1210)
The main objective of our cultural policy still is to make sure
that Canadians have access to Canadian products in order for them
to share common values and symbols and continue to develop a
cultural identity fitting their image.
Bill C-103 is an extension of our cultural policy. Even if the
challenges are many, our track record shows that we can not only
meet them but do an excellent job of it.
[English]
I will conclude with a quote from the report of the task force on
the Canadian magazine industry. ``Magazines help foster in
Canadians a sense of ourselves. They enable us to see ourselves as
no others see us. They also enable us to view the rest of the world
from a Canadian standpoint. They are the thread which binds
together the fibres of our nation''.
I urge my colleagues to support Bill C-103 at third reading.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, today we are debating, at third reading, Bill C-103, an act
to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Income Tax Act. On behalf of
the Bloc Quebecois, I rise today to reiterate our support of this bill,
which is basically aimed at putting an end to the distribution of
split run editions in Canada and at strengthening the provision
granting tax deductions to Canadian companies advertising in
Canadian newspapers and magazines.
For the benefit of our listeners, I should add that a split run
edition is an edition in which more than 20 per cent of the editorial
content is of foreign origin.
It is important to note that this bill was made necessary by the
government's lack of action to take the required steps to ban split
run editions in Canada.
In 1993, Time Warner advised the Canadian government that it
intended to distribute a split run edition of Sports Illustrated in
Canada. As I said in my September 25 speech, instead of acting, the
government chose to appoint a task force to study the issue. Sports
Illustrated went ahead with its plan unhindered and with the full
knowledge of the government.
16123
Time Warner simply decided to electronically send the editorial
content of its American magazine to Canada. It then sold
advertisement to Canadian companies, and printed and distributed
its magazine in Canada. Therefore, dumping advertising was
possible for Sports Illustrated because its domestic market already
covered its production costs. It could sell ads much cheaper and
undermine the magazine industry in Quebec and Canada.
However, and I want to be clear on this point, that measure is not
aimed only at Sports Illustrated. In fact, it became necessary
because Sports Illustrated was the first magazine to circumvent the
intent of the Canadian law. I know, and it was said repeatedly at the
finance committee, that other businesses are only waiting for a
slight bending on the part of the Canadian legislators to do exactly
what Sports Illustrated did, that is transfer some editorial content
to Canada and practice advertisement dumping.
I would also like to remind you that this bill was requested by
representatives of the magazine industry in Quebec and Canada
mainly for two reasons: first, because the industry could not have
grown without the proper protection measures and second, because
there is no financial security in that sector of the cultural industry.
For example, at the finance committee, Mr. Jean Paré, editor of
L'actualité and representative of the Association québécoise des
éditeurs de magazines, when speaking about the impact of the
measures implemented by Canada to protect the Canadian
magazine industry, told the committee that most of these
magazines would not exist without the measures that successive
federal governments have implemented over the last 30 years to
level the playing field for Canadian businesses in the international
market and ensure fair competition.
(1215)
``The proof of our argument is that, before this legislation was
adopted, our industry was nonexistent. The magazine I represent
will be just 20 years old in a few months. When it was started up,
only three of the 57 periodicals I represent today were in existence.
The combined annual circulation of those in existence at that time
was a mere six million copies. Today, our 57 members have a total
of 80 million annual circulation; with the nonmembers added in,
the figure is 138 million. The legislation adopted 25 years ago
triggered investment in these businesses. The magazine industry in
English Canada has followed almost the same path.''
In his presentation to the Finance Committee, Mr. Paré indicated
that, at first sight, one might think that these figures indicate that
the magazine sector is a healthy one, but this is not the case. In fact,
his statement to the Committee confirmed the conclusions of the
task force on the Canadian periodical industry. Mr. Paré said:
``One might think that this is a robust and flourishing sector of
the communications industry. Not in the least. Nine out of ten of
these magazines are not cost-effective and are in existence solely
because the publisher has a few profitable titles. This minority of
profitable magazines, moreover, has to settle for profits that, on the
average, barely exceed 10 per cent, far from what is considered a
minimum in the US. Between 60 per cent and 70 per cent of these
magazines' revenues come from advertising and a 10 per cent cut
in advertising would probably wipe out the entire Canadian
magazine industry''.
Sports Illustrated also testified before the Finance Committee.
During its presentation, the company stated that Bill C-103 was
unfair because it specifically targeted Sports Illustrated.
In fact, it is true that the bill calls for imposition of an 80 per cent
excise tax on the advertising revenues of split run magazines, and
that this measure must be applied to Sports Illustrated. The bill
states that this measure does not apply to those split run periodicals
which were already published and distributed in Canada as at
March 26, 1993, and Sports Illustrated began its Canadian
distribution on April 1, 1993.
Unlike what Time Warner, the publishers of Sports Illustrated,
would have us believe, this measure is not solely aimed at its
magazine. In his presentation to the finance committee, Mr. Paré
described as follows the competition Quebec magazines might face
if Bill C-103 were not passed by this House, and I quote:
``The publishing giants are not all American. They do not
publish in English alone. The competition comes from German,
French and British companies as well. These gigantic concerns,
which may own hundreds of different magazines, the smallest with
a circulation that sometimes exceeds that of the biggest Canadian
magazines, are increasingly publishing in all languages in compact
editions with adapted content, in order to skim off advertising
revenue in as many markets as possible. These international
publishers are now discovering Canada''.
So Bill C-103 is not exclusively aimed at Sports Illustrated, as
Time Warner would have us believe, but also at all the other
magazine publishers who are waiting to see what will happen to
this attempt by an American magazine to enter the Canadian
market.
In its presentation to the finance committee, Sports Illustrated
insisted that it participated in Canadian life, first by printing stories
on Canadian teams and athletes like the Toronto Blue Jays and
Elvis Stojko, and second, by creating jobs in Canada. In this respect
the magazine's representatives stated, and I quote:
16124
``-the company saw this as an opportunity to create jobs for
Canadians in printing and distribution, and assignment
opportunities for Canadian journalists and sports photographers''.
(1220)
According to our information, however, Canadian content in
Sports Illustrated is minimal. Furthermore, it seems that the stories
in Sports Illustrated that feature Canadian athletes would have
been included in any event in the U.S. version of the magazine.
Elvis Stojko may be a Canadian, but he also won the gold for figure
skating, which makes him an international star, so it is not
surprising he would be featured in Sports Illustrated. In fact, it
would be surprising if Sports Illustrated did not have a story on
Elvis Stojko.
As for job creation, I am told that the contribution of Sports
Illustrated in this area is rather meagre. With both versions of
Sports Illustrated being produced entirely in the New York,
Canada's editorial contribution was to all intents and purposes nil.
As to the job of printing, one printer estimates it takes a maximum
of nine hours press time to print an issue of Sports Illustrated. We
really have to ask ourselves just how much Sports Illustrated
contributes to Canadian culture and employment.
On the other hand, Sports Illustrated clearly creams off the
advertising market by selling its advertising space at cut prices. In
its brief to the Standing Committee on Finance, the magazine
announced its intention to change from a monthly format to a
weekly one, an announcement that will hardly be reassuring for the
Canadian industry, if the government does not act diligently.
This legislative measure is important for the magazine industry.
I would, however, like to take this opportunity today to remind the
government that it must also implement the other measures put
forward by the task force on the magazine industry.
They are: first, freeze the funds set aside for the postal subsidy
program at their 1995 level and second, remove the GST from all
reading materials. The Liberal Party of Canada made clear and
formal commitments in this regard. It passed a resolution to the
effect that a Liberal government would reaffirm the historical
principle of not taxing the publishing industry and would remove
the goods and services tax, the GST, from all reading materials. We
are still waiting for these promises to take effect.
Third, the Government of Canada should be obliged and the
provincial governments encouraged to place advertising messages
to the people of Canada in Canadian magazines only. Fourth, the
Investment Canada Act should be amended to ensure that the
Department of Canadian Heritage vets all measures approved by
Investment Canada concerning periodicals and magazines.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to address Bill C-103.
The real question governments have to ask themselves when
they are creating legislation that deals with issues like cultural
trade policy is who is the real guardian of cultural trade or culture
in Canada. We have to ask ourselves who is the real protector of
consumers. Is it the government or is it Canadians themselves?
Those are the critical issues.
I will not talk today about the technical aspects of this piece of
legislation. We have done that in committee and over the last
several days in other speeches. I will not get into that, but I want to
talk a lot about the principle that surrounds who determines what
culture is, which culture is worth protecting and why culture should
be protected at all. That is the critical issue underlying the debate
today. We are having a technical debate about this piece of
legislation but it goes deeper than that. It goes right down to who is
the guardian of culture in Canada. We can even extend that and say
that it applies to the debate we have had on what is going on in
Quebec, the referendum campaign, and who makes determinations
about who knows best what is culture and that kind of thing.
(1225)
I will talk about that matter over the course of my speech from a
couple of different perspectives. I will to talk about it from the
cultural perspective and from the economic perspective. Again the
question is: Who knows better what is best for the ordinary
consumer of cultural and the protection of culture and who knows
best for the ordinary consumer, the ordinary person who pays
taxes? I would argue in both cases that ideally it is individuals
themselves and failing that it is lower levels of government.
First I will talk about the economic issues. The minister spoke at
great length about how it was important to protect the magazine
industry in Canada and that we needed the legislation to do it. What
about all the other people affected by the legislation? It is not just
the magazine industry that has a stake in it. Certainly advertisers
use magazines as a vehicle to get their message out to the
consumers. What effect will the legislation have on them?
I will give an example of how the legislation harms the ordinary
advertiser and why that is a problem. A business somewhere in
Ontario is selling computers and using Sports Illustrated to get its
message out because it had the perfect demographic and the right
audience. All of a sudden it will be denied that vehicle. However its
competitor, IBM out of the U.S., will not be denied that vehicle. It
will be able to use SI's North American circulation to deliver that
message against me. In doing that it will have an unfair competitive
advantage.
16125
It is not the fault of the business in Ontario that is trying to
sell computers. It is the fault of the government that is denying
Sports Illustrated the chance to come into Canada and sell
advertising to businesses like that. These products have a value
to the people who use them. That is why they spend money on
them.
We are denying that business a chance to use that vehicle to
capture its own market. We may have a situation where IBM is
coming in and is dominant in Canada because it has access to very
cheap advertising that the business from somewhere in Ontario
does not have. We are discriminating against the advertisers, the
businesses that are employers of people and pay taxes to the
Government of Canada. We denying them that chance. That is one
reason the legislation is wrong.
The hon. minister talked about the fact that there are many
Canadian magazines and people have access to them. What about
the magazines we do not have access to because of the legislation?
We do not know which ones they are. One of the theories of
economics is that we never see the sometimes unintended, invisible
results of economic policies.
What about those who cannot afford the subscription rates?
What about those magazines? What about the ones that use the
advertising revenue to get a wider distribution so they can charge
more for their advertising? We will never hear about those
magazines. They will never come here because they cannot support
their subscription rates with more advertising rates. We are denied
access to those. We will never know what we are missing because
we will never see those magazines.
The same argument goes to the price that we pay for the ones that
get here.
(1230 )
It is well known that prices are much higher in Canada for
American or foreign magazines than they would be in their country
of origin. I would argue that the reason for that is because the
subscription price cannot be underwitten by the advertising
revenues. So we again have a situation in which the consumers are
taking it in the ear so that we can protect a certain privileged class,
a group of people who publish magazines in this country and are
lucky enough to enjoy the protection of the Canadian government.
In all these ways, consumers and advertisers are paying a high
price for this government's policy. I point out again that in doing
that we are denying people the chance to take their disposable
income and spend it in other areas and cause the economy to grow
and create jobs, the multiplier effect, et cetera. That is precisely
how it works when there is free trade.
Before I talk about free trade in general I want to talk for a
moment about the idea of an 80 per cent tax and about the
principles the Canadian magazine industry has fought this issue on.
To find out where those principles come from I think we have to go
back to an earlier debate, to the debate about the GST.
There was an enlightening article in the Montreal Gazette on
Monday, October 30, which I would like to quote. I think it puts the
argument of the Canadian magazine industry into perspective and
helps us to understand where they are coming from. This is from an
article by William Watson, economic affairs editor of the Montreal
Gazette:
Those who support the law, i.e., the Canadian magazine industry, argue the
Americans have an unfair advantage. Their U.S. stories have already been
written and therefore cost the split run virtually nothing. By contrast, editorial
content in all Canadian magazines is all new for the Canadian market, so the
playing field is uneven.
Well, the playing field for bananas and oranges is uneven too: tropical
countries produce them much more cheaply than we do, but we do not insist
Canadian fruit lovers buy Canadian-made oranges and bananas. If Canadian
readers prefer cheaper U.S. editorial content to more expensive Canadian
editorial content, why should Ottawa interfere with their choice?
When the GST was first being debated, the Canadian publishing industry ran
an ad campaign, the gist of which was that other countries used to burn books,
we just tax them. But now the very same industry is pushing an 80 per cent tax
on one form of reading material.
Burning books is OK, I guess, so long as the books are American.
I think a very good argument is made in this article against the
argument the Canadian magazine industry was using. They also
make a very cogent argument for individual Canadians to be the
protectors of culture. They are saying that individual Canadians
should be the guardians of culture in this country.
It is the old cliché that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. While
the Government of Canada may think something is not very good
editorial comment or content and it may somehow be un-Canadian,
other people may appreciate it. It enriches their lives, as reading
always does. They find it fulfilling. That is why they read it.
By denying some of these magazines a chance to earn revenue by
picking up advertisers in this country, we are in some cases denying
them the chance to actually send their magazines into this country.
I think this article absolutely explodes the argument of the
Canadian magazine publishing industry, going back to the GST
debate, about the GST being a form of book burning then, but when
there is an 80 per cent tax on Sports Illustrated it is somehow
different.
I really do think this argument is all about who should be the real
guardians of culture in this country. I could go on about that in
more detail, but I want to get on to the whole idea of free trade and
something I talked about yesterday. It makes the point and so I will
raise it again.
16126
(1235)
I remember from the free trade debate in 1988 all the articles and
various newspaper, video, and TV clips that we saw about the effect
free trade was going to have on the wine industry in Canada. I bet a
lot of people remember that. I remember how people said it was
going to devastate grape growers and the wine industry in Canada.
There were all kinds of protests. We saw them in the Okanagan and
also in southern Ontario.
At the end of the day, completely the opposite was the case. Not
only did the wine industry thrive, it is now acknowledged around
the world as one of the finest wine industries in the world. We have
won all kinds of rewards as a result of the competition free trade
brought in, which forced wine growers to become efficient and
among the best in the world.
The same happens in every sector when we allow it to happen. It
gets back to this whole argument about who decides what is right
for the country. Should it be the government or vested interests?
Should it be particular interests, which of course will never turn
down protection from the government? They will in fact invite it.
However, at the end of the day, what is best for consumers?
Consumers end up with a cheaper product. They end up with more
selection. They end up with the highest quality. Should that not be
the standard we strive for? I think that is exactly what we get when
we have free trade, even in the cultural industries.
Again I say that Canadians themselves should be the guardians
and protectors of their own culture. They are more than capable of
doing that. They are very sophisticated people. They can make
those decisions for themselves. I want to point to some examples
where I think the cultural industry is doing extremely well, where it
does compete in the world extremely well.
Before I do that I want to touch on an issue the minister raised.
He talked about general interest magazines being of interest to
Canadians when they come from the United States but not
necessarily the other way around. In other words, Americans may
not be very interested in general interest magazines that come from
Canada. I do not really disagree with that; I think that is probably
true. We could make some arguments that if there are retired
Canadian people down in the States there may be some interest in
these general interest magazines. That is probably true, but that is
really not the point.
I take the minister's point. However, what about all the specialty
magazines? What about, for instance, a golf magazine? Why does a
golf magazine have to come from the United States? Why cannot
golf magazines come from Canada and be exported into the United
States? For crying out loud, there is no difference in the game from
one country to the other. In fact we have Canadian golfers on the
professional golf tour. Why can it not work that way?
We had a witness before us who I guess was representing the
interests of the Canadian magazine industry, but that person
acknowledged that their magazine has about 30 per cent of their
circulation into the United States. Obviously that is not something
they would want to lose. It helps them to make a profit and
strengthens their industry.
I would argue that if we want to strengthen the industries then we
cannot rely on the tiny population, relatively speaking, that Canada
has compared to the United States or the rest of the world. To
further make the point, when we had a member of the Quebec
magazine publishing industry before us he talked about the threat
Quebec magazines faced if split run publishing was allowed in
Canada. He talked about the possibility of all these magazines from
other countries in the world coming in. He was not so worried
about the U.S., of course, because it did not publish that often in
French, but the big competitor was France. He talked specifically
about France and actually Germany. He also talked about the
Swedes, the Swiss, the Belgians being a threat. That struck me as
very odd, because here are tiny countries, smaller in some cases
than Canada, and they are a threat to Canada with their publishing
industry. That struck me as extremely odd.
(1240)
If you think about it, what they have realized and what they are
doing is saying they cannot survive, probably the French
juggernaut as well, by remaining insular, by looking inward. They
have to take their product and market it to the rest of the world.
They were trying to do that in Quebec and no doubt in other places
around the world. That is how they were not only surviving but
thriving.
To me that makes eminent sense. If you have a small market, the
best way to turn the tables on the guys who are using the economy
of scale on you is to turn around and use it back on them, to use
your editorial comment and mass produce it to get into other
countries around the world. In specialty magazines that can be
done. We are seeing it to some degree through Canadian magazines
already in the United States, but there is certainly a tremendous
market to keep doing it or there is a tremendous market there and
tremendous potential to keep expanding.
If we put impediments in place that prevent us from doing that,
like the clause in the split run bill, Bill C-103, which does not allow
Canadian magazines-this is unbelievable-that have a circulation
in the United States that is less than it is in Canada to send back the
editorial content via split run to Canada, then we are putting up an
impediment that prevents our magazine industry from becoming
bigger and from going out into these other countries and really
making it more viable over the long run. I do not understand why in
the world we are doing that.
16127
We had people before the committee and one of the magazines
doing that is Harrowsmith, a Canadian magazine that has a
circulation in the United States. It is publishing out of New York
and sending stuff back by split run to Canada and using the same
content, but it is a Canadian magazine. Those people voluntarily
said that if this is to be an argument used against this legislation,
they will quit doing split run because at the end of the day it is
in their best interest. That is not an argument, in my judgment.
It is fine for them to say that; they are established down there now.
But what about the guys who want to go down there and get
established by having, for instance, a specialty magazine that
appeals to Canadians and to Americans and to anybody who
speaks the English language? Why are we standing in the way of
that? That is the way to make our industry viable.
From what I have seen in the book publishing industry, we have
some of the best writers in the world. We can produce editorial
content that is better than anybody else's in the world. We have
proven that before. You look at the book publishing industry and at
how widely read Canadian books are around the world and you
know we are producers of great writers. We can do that. The same
argument applies when we are talking about French writers. We
could produce some of the best editorial content in the world, but
we are being denied the right to do that, partially through this split
run clause in the legislation.
It is more than that. It is the attitude. We are saying do not let the
Americans in and we will not go in there. It is kind of a saw-off. It
is crazy when we have so much to share with the rest of the world,
the best artists and writers and creators of all kinds in this country.
It is absolutely crazy that we are doing that.
Yesterday I mentioned this, but I will bring up again the
Canadian Association of Broadcasters convention I attended on the
weekend. The minister was there as well and spoke to the
convention. What I want to talk about is how Canadian
broadcasters have really gone out and made a success of
themselves around the world because they have not been afraid to
use the economies of scale, taking Canadian product and using it
across the world.
(1245 )
One of the best examples of this is CanWest Global of Winnipeg
which is huge in New Zealand and in Australia. Another very good
example is Power Corp. which is now very big in Europe. I
understand it is the biggest broadcaster in Europe and is doing
extremely well. Another example is Electrohome Ltd. and there are
others.
These companies take the programming they produce here and to
take full advantage of the economies of scale they have marketed
around the world. They have done extremely well. It means jobs for
Canadian film makers, jobs for Canadian actors, jobs for Canadian
screenwriters. Already we have the beginnings of a cultural
industry which is doing extremely well in so far as it is allowed to
compete freely in the world.
We should not be looking inward. I go back to what I started
with, the real guardians of Canadian culture cannot be the
government. It cannot make those determinations. There are too
many different opinions out there. The real guardians of Canadian
culture have to be individual people. People are very intelligent.
They can make these determinations. They do not need the
government dragging them around by the nose telling them that
this is worthy of protection. That is crazy. We are too grown up for
that.
Another issue needs to be raised and that is the whole issue of
what may happen if we become too protectionist of our markets. It
was not very long ago-the minister was involved in this-that we
ran into precisely that type of problem when we decided to kick
CMT out of Canada. CMT was Country Music Television, a video
network, which had been in Canada for several years. Then a
Canadian service came on and CMT was thrown out. It caused a rift
between us and the Americans.
We are an exporting country. I hate to see that market close down
for Canadian producers of culture because we make so much
money from it. It enables those people to survive. What we saw in
the CMT incident was the possibility that we were going to have
the market closed off to us for our cultural exports. That is
extremely dangerous. A good example of its importance is to look
at how fast the private sector cultural industries have grown in the
last few years.
As the subsidies from government diminish-the minister will
certainly acknowledge they have diminished over the years-the
private sector cultural industries have boomed. First, they need
neither cultural protection nor subsidization. Second, they have
been successful and are continuing to be successful at exporting
their products to the United States and other countries around the
world which has certainly meant substantial growth in that sector.
Returns were around $16 billion in 1993 and were up to $22 billion
in 1994, about 3.7 per cent of the GDP. This sector is actually
growing very quickly which I believe bodes well. I will discuss this
in more detail shortly.
Protectionism is a very dangerous route to go if we depend on
other markets to make our cultural industries profitable. If they are
closed down we are in big trouble.
I want to talk for a moment about what I see as the way to make
cultural industries prosper and really do well in this country. I
touched on the fact that private sector cultural industries are
growing like crazy due to a couple of reasons. One of the reasons is
that as the population ages people are spending more of their
money on cultural products like movies, going to the theatre,
books, magazines and so on. In a speech in the House not too long
ago, the minister pointed out that as disposable income has
increased over the years we have seen the Canadian magazine
16128
industry do extremely well. Having more disposable income is the
real key.
(1250 )
That brings us back to the whole debate about the deficit, the
debt and taxes. I hate to mention it again. I mention it every time I
speak but it is a huge cloud that hangs over our heads. The debt in
this country is $560 billion. Yesterday we found out that 34 cents,
or one-third, of every tax dollar goes toward interest on the debt.
That is an unbelievable amount of money.
Can members imagine if we did not have to pay that, if we could
keep it in our pockets, how much more people could purchase?
Cultural industries would absolutely boom. We would not even be
having this discussion about protecting the nation's cultural
industries. They would absolutely explode.
In my judgment, we should not be wasting all this bureaucracy
and people's valuable time to come up with more regulation and
more protection. What we should be doing is beating down the
debt, beating down the deficit, getting to a point where we can keep
more money in our pockets. Canadians will go out and support
magazines, not because they are Canadian but because they speak
to us about things we are interested in.
As I said in committee, as long as politicians are wasting money
in Ottawa and as long as there is crime in the streets, people are
going to want to know what is going on in Ottawa, in their
government and in their country.
The best way to do that is to find out from the people who
publish Canadian magazines. Canadian magazines already have a
huge head start. They already have the history, and the people
running them who understand the country. That is a huge advantage
over anything that comes in from outside the country.
If they have disposable income, Canadians will make those
decisions themselves. Those people are the true protectors of
Canadian culture. They will make those decisions for themselves.
Canadians over the years have demonstrated time and time
again, better than government, that they can make decisions about
important issues far better than politicians in Ottawa can, far better
than the bureaucrats can, far better even than the provincial
governments and even municipal governments can. I argue that
those two levels of government make better decisions than the
federal government. Ultimately people have displayed that they are
more than mature enough to make excellent decisions on behalf of
themselves, their communities and their families.
What this whole debate has been about, if one just sort of looks
past all the technical issues and the details, is who should decide
what is best for me. Should it be the government or should it be
me? My colleagues and I would argue and a whole bunch of
Canadians would argue that they should make the decision for
themselves. Let us get away from the idea that the government
knows best because people do not buy into that any more. Let us
get away from the idea that one man or a cabinet can decide for 30
million people and all the different groups that make up those 30
million what is culture, what is art.
It is impossible. It is crazy. We have a chance to roll that tide
back by voting against this legislation. I encourage all members to
take a close look at the principles behind this legislation and to ask
themselves who the guardians should be of Canadian culture.
Should it be the Government of Canada, bureaucracies or should it
be people themselves?
At the end of the day in their heart of hearts, they will admit that
the people are more than capable of making those decisions.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring coherence to
this debate and to speak to Bill C-103. Bill C-103 will play a major
role in maintaining a vibrant and flourishing Canadian magazine
industry. I want to use my time to present a broader perspective of
the government's ongoing commitment to this industry.
(1255)
This bill should be understood in the context of a
long-established tradition of government support to the Canadian
magazine industry as well as the industry's contribution to
Canada's economy. More important, in a country where natural
geography makes communication difficult, magazines play a key
unifying role.
Canadian periodicals are an essential medium of cultural
expression for Canadians. They serve as channels for conveying
Canadian ideas, information and values. They are an integral part
of the process whereby Canadians define themselves as a nation.
Beyond the direct social and cultural impact of the Canadian
magazine industry, there are sizeable indirect effects which
contribute to the smooth functioning of the Canadian economy.
Unfortunately Canadian magazines are confronted with a series
of unique challenges: massive penetration of the Canadian market
by imported magazines; the relatively small size of the Canadian
population and its dispersion over vast territory; the openness of
Canadians to foreign cultural products; the effect of the cover
prices of imported magazines on the Canadian price structure; and
the impact of overflow advertising on the potential advertising
market in Canada.
Even if the magazine industry has flourished culturally with over
1,300 titles, its financial position is fragile with overall pre-tax
profits of less than 6 per cent of revenues of $795 million in
1993-94.
16129
The Canadian government has supported the domestic magazine
industry and will continue to do so for many reasons. The principal
reason is the importance that Canadians place on having a means
of expressing their unique identity and the difficult and
challenging environment the Canadian magazine industry faces.
The need for structural measures of support for the Canadian
magazine industry has long been recognized by successive
Canadian governments. Over the years a number of policy and
program instruments have been designed and put into place to help
ensure the development of the Canadian magazine industry while
not restricting the sale of imported periodicals in Canada.
My friends across the way who speak to this issue are somehow
misguided. We are doing much collectively to provide a dynamic
and original culture which nurtures our national identity. Questions
such as, what is culture, or do we have a single overarching cultural
policy, may be good subjects for discussion. The truth is that
cultural challenges in Canada have always been addressed by
specific cultural policies put together by governments.
If we look at cultural policy goals pursued by consecutive or
successive Canadian governments over more than half a century,
their consistency is remarkable. Specific policy objectives
developed by a succession of governments clearly reflected the
reality of an original Canadian culture. Uppermost among these
objectives is Canadian ownership and control of cultural
enterprises, a made in Canada broadcasting system, the protection
of sovereignty in the arts, cultural expression, the creation of an
environment enabling cultural industries to sustain themselves and
the recognition on the world stage of Canada's artistic and cultural
accomplishments. Our global cultural policy was designed to
promote the development of a diverse yet distinctive Canadian
culture fostering mutual understanding, identity and quality of life.
(1300)
Successive governments have recognized that Canada with its
two official languages benefits from easy access to two of the
greatest cultures in the world. The presence of our First Nations
peoples and the diverse origins of our population have been
justifiably looked upon as a fertile source of inspiration.
Canadian governments have also understood the influence of the
United States on Canada's culture and identity. On one hand the
fabric of our society can be enriched by our direct access to
American cultural products and means of expression. On the other
hand, this same access can weaken our ability to create and express
ourselves in a distinctly Canadian fashion in our own country.
Canadian governments could see the evidence that Canadians do
want Canadian cultural products and that Canadians are prepared to
pay a price for them. Canadians also accept that government has a
role in striking the right balance between supports to Canadian
cultural development and access to other cultures. In short,
Canadian governments are involved in cultural policy because the
public interest is at stake.
Perhaps more than anything else, Canadian culture is vulnerable.
We said in the red book:
Culture is the very essence of national identity, the bedrock of national
sovereignty and national pride-. At a time when globalization and the
information and communications revolution are erasing national borders,
Canada needs more than ever to commit itself to cultural development.
Canadian culture is also the substance and the reflection of who
we are and what we form as a people. Our landscape is part of it;
our tastes, our languages, our pastimes, the way we view the world,
these all enter in. Our culture and our life as a nation are
intertwined. As the reflection of who we are, our cultural
expression becomes the aggregate of our voices and creative
energies. For those reasons alone, Canada's cultural development
and the quality of its cultural expression are worthy of
government's attention.
My Reform friend said governments should stay out. But we
know that Canadians are enthusiastic about the state of the arts in
Canada and the involvement of all governments in that state of the
arts. The quality and abundance of creative work and performance
have never been higher. I think my friend noted that. Strength and
certainty are now evident in the work of our writers, our artists, our
performers. We celebrate their achievements as well as their
commitment, a commitment after all to ourselves.
As a society we wish to reward our artists. They need not only
our interest and attention, but also material conditions within
which they can engage in their work and their art. In so doing, they
can offer all of us a better chance to reach our own potential as a
people and as individuals. I have many friends in the arts world and
I know of individuals who are struggling to keep body and soul
together and bread on the table.
Culture is a complex whole. It includes the knowledge, beliefs,
art, morals, laws, customs and all other capabilities and habits
acquired by the members of a particular society. Like other
fundamental concepts, culture can only be understood by a
familiarity with the realities it summarizes. It may be difficult to
define American, French or Canadian culture, but the artistic
products of those cultures, their books, magazines and films for
example, can readily reflect and inform the cultures of which they
are products.
(1305)
Canadians are avid consumers of cultural products. After the
Dutch, we are the second highest per capita purchasers of records
and tapes in the world. We are also among the world's great film
and movie goers.
16130
Canadian culture flourishes in our major cities. It thrives in
every hamlet and draws strength from every region. It comes from
passion, talent, commitment and hard work. The wonder of
Canadian culture in all its diversity is its ability to expand our
horizons as individuals and to bring us together as human beings
and as a society. Our culture, our Canadian, diverse, original
culture, is part of our identity and greatness. We must stand on
guard for it. It is the soul of our country.
Our bookstores, our news stands, our record shops, cinemas and
television screens testify to Canada's position as one of the greatest
importers of cultural products in the world. We enjoy our access to
other cultures. However, we repeatedly ask ourselves whether there
should not be a more normal balance between Canadian
perspectives and those from elsewhere. This is the crux of the bill.
Together, our arts and cultural industries contribute over $24
billion to the gross domestic product or 4 per cent of the GDP of the
entire economy, and important for us, 660,000 jobs. This did not
happen by accident. This did not happen, as our friend across the
way would say, by letting the individuals do it. It was the result of a
combination of the desire and determination of successive
governments and the great talent which exists in our country.
The challenges facing the Canadian market for cultural content
are growing increasingly complex every day. There can be little
doubt that today's reality of fiscal restraint will continue to affect
our future activities. Policy priorities change to take account of
new challenges, world trends and windows of opportunity. The
goals to be met by those priorities however should not change. The
scene changes, the values do not.
This is important work, work which government has been doing
successfully for years through such policy tools as public cultural
institutions, support measures, and legislation and regulation. In
fact, the development of legislative and regulatory measures has
been particularly effective in promoting Canadian cultural
sovereignty. Few measures have been more efficient than those
dealing with Canadian content.
Canada has not been the only country to implement such
legislative and regulatory measures. For example, specific
restrictions are common for publishing, film and videos in
countries like Argentina, Brazil, France, Mexico and Australia.
Need I go on?
Venezuela has specific policies and requirements for newspapers
and periodical publishing. In film and video, France, India,
Indonesia, Mexico, the Philippines, Portugal, Spain and
Switzerland maintain varying degrees of restrictions on inward
investment. Mexico maintains limitations in film and video,
broadcasting and periodical publishing. Brazil has grouped
television, radio and the print media as one of the strategic
industries to which it applies the same foreign investment
restrictions.
We cannot go by a rule which says the one with the deepest
pockets wins. As a market, Canada is one-tenth the size of the
United States. The cost of producing a film or television program is
the same in Canada as it is in the U.S. Our ability to recover those
costs is one-tenth.
I must emphasize that it is never an issue of keeping other
products out. That is not the intent of this bill. Canada is the most
open country when it comes to enjoying the cultural products of
other countries. The issue is ensuring the development and
distribution of Canadian content and ensuring that Canadians know
it is there and they have access to it.
(1310)
The Canadian government has been consistent. Its magazine
policy has not changed. I will say this for the information of the
Reform members who spoke against this, with these amendments
to the Excise Tax Act and the Income Tax Act, the federal
government is modernizing its policy instruments. In this way, the
entire range of government policy and program instruments can
better achieve the overall objective of a vital and flourishing
Canadian magazine industry.
Those in the industry are depending on those of us in this House
to ensure that Bill C-103 gets swift passage.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion agreed to on
division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.) moved that
Bill C-95, an act to establish the Department of Health and to
amend and repeal certain acts, be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise with great pleasure to speak in
support of Bill C-95, a bill to create Canada's Department of
Health.
I want to say a word about the referendum this week. Like many
members of this House, I am pleased with the result, but I do not
want to downplay the challenges that lie ahead of us. This
government came into power with an agenda for change that it will
16131
implement appropriately to improve efficiencies and to create
better bottom up management that recognizes the regional
differences and specific needs of this vast country of ours. We
remain committed to change, for Quebec and for all of Canada.
Since taking office, we have embarked on reforms to make the
country work better, to eliminate duplication and top heavy
administration and to ensure that services are delivered by the level
of government that is most appropriate and best able to do the job.
Let me talk about some of these changes.
We have signed agreements with nine provinces to reduce
federal-provincial duplications. We have signed agreements with
all provinces to end internal trade barriers in Canada and to
promote efficient movement of goods and services across the
country.
In keeping with our commitment to forge partnerships with all
levels of government and the private sector, an unprecedented team
Canada trade mission with nine premiers and many municipal
leaders went to China. The team brought home more than $8 billion
in deals for Canadian businesses that benefited every province.
We have eliminated unnecessary boards and committees making
government leaner. We have eliminated subsidies to businesses and
other groups in order to make government relevant and less
intrusive. We have turned over the management of many programs
to local authorities, streamlining and removing duplication and
inefficiencies. It is in keeping with this move toward efficiency and
relevance that we introduced the legislation before us.
Bill C-95 is a milestone in the evolution of a health system that is
the envy of countries around the world. Over more than two
generations, Canadians from across this great country under the
leadership of Liberal prime ministers and ministers of health have
built Canada's health system with great care and courage, foresight
and compassion. We are proud and honoured to carry the torch of
their vision forward, unaltered, while at the same time responding
to the need and the challenge for finding new ways to implement
the goals.
(1315)
The bill will change the name of the federal department to give it
a more focused mandate. It will confirm and strengthen the raison
d'être of the Department of Health, which is to promote and
preserve the health of Canadians. It will reaffirm its mission of
helping the people of Canada maintain and improve their health
status. It will continue to fulfil these objectives through medicare
and public health initiatives, through research and investigation,
through education and awareness, and through the monitoring and
investigation of food, drugs, devices and products that would
compromise the safety of Canadians.
However the social assistance and income support programs of
the government once contained within the Department of National
Health and Welfare have been turned over to the Department of
Human Resources Development, and for good reason. As we move
into the 21st century issues such as poverty, unemployment and
social welfare have become inextricably linked with the notion of
empowerment through creation of opportunity via skills, training
and education, all aimed at developing the human resource
potential.
Bill C-95 addresses the need for a clear and proactive focus on
Canada's primary resource, its people, and on ensuring that their
quality of life and health status are balanced, enhanced and
improved. It allows us to concentrate on the broader spectrum of
issues that affect the health of Canadians today, the challenge and
enticements to come to terms with and to explore the complex new
discoveries, drugs and technologies that spring up with such
dizzying rapidity in the world of biomedical science.
These innovations have on the one hand presented us with
exciting new opportunities for prevention, diagnosis and treatment
of disease and alleviation of suffering and on the other hand raised
conflicting issues of safety, cost effectiveness, ethics and
evaluation of social values.
The act will allow our department to create a vision for the future
and at the same time to renew and strengthen our commitment to
co-operation, co-ordination and partnership with all Canadian
jurisdictions, provinces, territories, organizations and
communities. In keeping with this evolution, the bill brings about
the change that is the promised mandate of the government.
There is more to renaming the Department of Health than a mere
change of name. There is a clarification of focus and an opportunity
to formulate a new vision of the future that will improve greatly the
health status of Canadians and make innovations that will enhance
and strengthen what is already one of the best national health care
systems in the world.
This is no more clearly spelled out than in the portion of the act
that declares the health aspects of social well-being are the
responsibility of the Department of Health. We all know that social
well-being is multifactoral in its linkages and that it concerns in an
interlocking manner the policy makers of every government
department and every minister. Social well-being is interrelated
with the economy, with justice, with employment, with poverty or
wealth, with cultural and spiritual issues, with gender and ethnicity,
and with the environment. The new health definition is more than
just the absence of disease. It has to do with the quality of the
individual's life and ability to cope with disability.
In the case of Health Canada this responsibility, which has
always been implicit in its mandate, is now being explicitly
acknowledged. The context of the words in the bill make it clear
that the department's scope to exercise this broad definition of
health is confined to matters over which the health minister has
jurisdiction. It obviously does not give the Minister of Health the
mandate to infringe on other ministers' responsibilities. By using
the specific words in the bill, Canada has declared its commitment
to the definition of health used by the World Health Organization
16132
which says that there is more to health than health care. It says that
health means much more than the absence of disease.
Health is the complete state of physical, mental, spiritual and
social well-being. This is what the new department aspires to for
every Canadian. Its renewed commitment to a long and glorious
tradition has inspired Liberal governments, politicians of every
party and Canadian people over many years, indeed over many
decades.
(1320 )
Many eminent Canadians have been intimately associated with
the growth of Canada's health system: the hon. Judy LaMarsh, the
hon. Paul Martin, Senior, Mr. Justice Emmett Hall, the hon. Marc
Lalonde, the hon. Monique Bégin and the late hon. Tommy
Douglas. I mention only a few. We can see how the vision of health
has known no political boundaries in the past. Though members of
the third party as we well know have tried to challenge it in the
present, we can trace the evolution of the commitment to social
well-being through the contributions of each of these people.
In particular it was foreshadowed just over 10 years ago when
Parliament debated and unanimously passed the Canada Health Act
under the direction of the hon. Monique Bégin, the federal Liberal
Minister of Health at the time. This major milestone, the Canada
Health Act, contained a preamble that called for an assault on the
social, environmental and occupational causes of disease. The idea
that shaped that statement was a growing awareness of the
importance of nutrition, stress management, physical fitness,
safety in the workplace and the environment generally. These
concepts deal with health, not sickness. These are concepts the hon.
Marc Lalonde, another federal Liberal Minister of Health, created
and championed. This definition has since been taken up by many
other countries of the world and is now considered indisputable
fact.
These concepts of health deal with prevention and promotion,
not only cure, as the strategy for achieving health. It is a strategy
that speaks of long term planning, not only reactivity. It represents
the real health care revolution in the country.
Inherent in Bill C-59 most emphatically the concentrated focus
on health statement does not mean that our vision of the future of
health is intrusive or limiting. Clause 12 of the bill like the act it
replaces makes it clear that nothing in the act gives the Minister of
Health or any Health Canada official authority to exercise any
jurisdiction or control over any provincial health authority. As I
have just related in detail, it certainly defines health in its newest
and broadest terms.
The bill confirms and strengthens the national interest of the
federal government in health and answers those who would
Balkanize health care. We know that health care is primarily local
in nature. People who become sick are generally treated close to
home by their own medical practitioners. If necessary, they are
taken to hospitals in or near their town or city. It is well accepted
colloquially and constitutionally that the managerial and
administrative aspects of Canada's health system fall under the
jurisdiction of the provinces.
But Canada's intrinsic values, beliefs and ideals are not local in
nature. They define who we are as a people and what we stand for.
These values and beliefs are reflected in the principles of the
Canada Health Act.
While the federal government's financial contributions to the
provinces and territories subsidize a substantial share of the cost of
health care, the role and contribution of the Government of Canada
in the area of health extend well beyond its funding
responsibilities.
The work of the Department of Health touches the life of every
Canadian every day. It monitors the safety of the foods we eat, the
medication we take, the consumer products we buy for our
families. In effect it is the watchdog of consumer safety. Health
Canada identifies the health risks we should avoid and undertakes
the research programs that improve the health of children, women,
seniors and all other segments of society. It is a machine of
proactive care.
The protection aspects of health care begin long before health
interventions for the sick. It extends more broadly than mere
treatment of illness. It is in the national interest that systemic
examination of disease trends and health risks be in a single
accessible place where public health intelligence from within
Canada and around the world can be assembled and evaluated and
that there be a centre where population health strategies can
develop and where national health status benchmarks can be set.
To this end the laboratory centre for disease control located in
the department is dedicated to programs preventing, controlling
and reducing the impact of chronic and communicable diseases in
Canada.
(1325 )
There is a national interest in working with other countries to
combat and control health threats that know no borders. The
Government of Canada supports international collaboration against
the common threat of disease. It is in the national interest that
research into the causes and treatments of disease be carried out.
The federal government spends many hundreds of millions of
dollars a year on health research. The results of research are
available to all provinces, all hospitals and all doctors throughout
Canada. The outcome of research benefits all Canadians. It saves
the lives of all Canadians. Health Canada's role as co-ordinator,
database gatherer and clearinghouse is clearly invaluable.
16133
It is in the national interest that drugs and medical devices be
evaluated to ensure that regardless of where they are purchased
and used they are safe for public use and they do what the
manufacturers claim they do. The Department of Health analyses
pharmaceuticals that are submitted by manufacturers and certifies
their effectiveness and safety. The Department of Health works
to assure Canadians that their food supply is safe, nutritious and
of high quality. It is in the national interest that the Department
of Health does these things. It is also in the national interest that
standards are set and enforced so Canadians can be ensured of
comparable health care services no matter what province they
reside in or visit.
It has been well documented by many surveys that Canadians
want a national vision for health and social well-being. Poll after
poll has found that the health care system is in first place as one of
the things that binds Canadians together. They see it as a defining
aspect of Canadian values.
The latest Canada Health monitor findings show that 89 per cent
of Canadians support the principles of the Canada Health Act. The
third party across the way that seeks to trample on those principles
should get in touch with the people of Canada.
Health Canada has a clear role to play in public awareness and
education on health issues as well as a responsibility to protect
those who are disadvantaged. The government is proud of the
measures it has taken on behalf of groups with special needs whose
health status is more compromised such as First Nations persons,
children, seniors and other disadvantaged groups. At the same
time, because the health status of First Nations people requires
concentrated ongoing efforts we have expanded and enhanced
health programs for First Nations and Inuit people.
For instance, last year the Minister of Health announced the
building healthy communities strategy. In consultation with First
Nations and Inuit leaders we will implement the strategy to
strengthen efforts in three critical areas: solvent abuse, mental
health and home care nursing.
We are well aware that health programs designed and delivered
within First Nations communities are often more successful than
those delivered by outside agencies. I have proof of this not only
from my own experience as a physician working with aboriginal
communities to improve their health but more recently as I
travelled with the Standing Committee on Health across Canada
visiting native communities and seeing firsthand what worked and
what did not work.
We are working with the First Nations to increase their control
over their own resources. We have helped many bands to move
through the transition that will eventually culminate in full control
of management and administrative powers that will enable
self-government.
It would take too much time to tell the House of all the initiatives
now under way to empower Canadians who are least able to help
themselves, those disadvantaged by need or by neglect. However
with the indulgence of the House I will mention only a few. An
example is our seniors. We currently support research into
alternatives for care that promote independence and allow the
elderly to stay in their homes, close to friends, family and familiar
surrounding. We do this by funding groups that provide community
programs for seniors. This is what we mean by health status
encompassing quality of life objectives.
For our children Health Canada is a key player in a network of
government programs designed to improve the life chances for
children at risk. The clear understanding is that the future of
children depends on critical inputs during the first years of life. The
federal government administers a number of programs for
Canadian children and their families to help improve access to the
best opportunities for health and development. The department
directly supports a wide range of strategic programs targeted at
children at risk of abuse or injury, social or physical disease.
(1330)
What about women? For too long, women have taken second
place on the health agenda. Our government has taken dramatic
steps to correct this grave inequity. We have given strong support to
the Canadian breast cancer research initiative. We have introduced
gender specific elements into health promotion programs such as
Canada's drug strategy and the tobacco reduction demand strategy,
working with community groups to ensure that women get help at
the local level.
Statistics Canada showed that the prenatal death rate in this
country climbed in 1993. As a physician, I know that good nutrition
in pregnancy is a key factor in decreasing the rate of low birth
weight babies, who are at highest risk for chronic disease and
disability. Health Canada's prenatal nutrition program for low
income and other at risk mothers was a red book response to this
tragic occurrence. I am proud to say that this simple and effective
program would benefit many at risk babies in the future.
The hon. members of the third party with tunnel vision may rest
assured that spending on these health programs does not fly in the
face of the debt reduction priority of this government. Each dollar
that goes to prevent ill health saves tens and hundreds of dollars in
health care and treatment costs.
I turn now to the specifics of the bill before the House. As I have
said, essentially it renames the department to conform to its new
singular focus on health. Hon. members will find that most of what
is in the bill carries over from the previous legislation. There are a
few new items included in order to clarify the mandate of the
16134
department and to extend its abilities to discharge its mandate. I
will deal with some of these very briefly.
The bill defines the minister's powers in clause 4 as the
promotion and preservation of the physical, mental, and social
well-being of the people of Canada. Hon. members will understand
the meaning of social well-being in light of my earlier comments in
the context of this bill. We are concerned solely with the health
aspect of social well-being, because health is more than just health
care. It involves the total environment in which the organism lives
and develops, in which human babies are born, youth develops, and
seniors find quality of life. Health is based in the social order of the
community.
We speak then of the social well-being of Canadians in the same
breath as we speak of their physical, mental, and spiritual
well-being. Not only does this wording reflect the reality of human
existence, it echoes the wording and usage of the World Health
Organization of the United Nations.
A subclause of this section confirms the department's
responsibility for the safety of consumer products and workplace
equipment, which is a transfer from the former Department of
Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
By virtue of clause 5, Health Canada officials will gain the same
powers to inspect possible disease carrying agents entering the
country as they now have to enforce the Food and Drug Act.
Clause 6 authorizes the minister, under the supervision of
Treasury Board, to recover the cost of services provided to
business. I hasten to explain to the third party that for medically
necessary care this does not apply to user fees and they should
never confuse it. Members know that we remain unalterably
opposed in this government to any user fees.
What we really refer to under cost recovery is the cost recovery
of charges to businesses for the cost of government services that
have commercial value, such as evaluation of drugs, devices,
pesticides, et cetera, which we all agree taxpayers should not
subsidize.
I would like to reassure hon. members and the Canadian public
of one overriding truth, the clear mandate and mission of Health
Canada. Our mission will continue to be to help the people of
Canada maintain and improve their health. We will continue to
enforce the Canada Health Act so that all Canadians will have
universal access to a comprehensive range of medically necessary
quality health services. Our objective as a Liberal government has
historically been to ensure that the health care system remains
accessible to Canadians when they need it.
(1335 )
In this vein, hon. members are aware that the Minister of Health
has given the provinces until October 15 to disallow user charges
for medically necessary services in private clinics or experience
reductions in transfer payments. The message is clear and simple:
we will do what is required to stop user charges in their tracks, to
push them back wherever they have crept forward, and to prevent
the development of a two tiered system of health care, a system
which contradicts every one of the five principles of medicare, to
which Canadians have stated full commitment.
We do not oppose the use of private clinics. They can be a
creative, cost effective way to deliver services, and they can do so
without contravening the Canada Health Act if they are set with
clear, well defined criteria.
We are committed to consulting openly and thoroughly with our
provincial colleagues. We have shown our commitment to working
with them to resolve outstanding issues and renew their health care
system-indeed as they must-in a way that preserves and respects
the underlying principles and values of the Canada Health Act.
However, the bottom line remains fixed: no Canadian will suffer
financial hardship because of illness in this country. This principle
has not changed since Emmett Hall's report and since Liberal
Prime Minister Lester Pearson enacted medicare. It will not change
in the future as long as there is a Liberal government in Canada.
We will continue our wide range of activities aimed at
preventing disease and promoting health. We know this is the best
investment in the health status of Canadians that we can possibly
make.
We know that 60 per cent of disease is preventable. We know
that early screening, public information and awareness, research,
and healthy public policy can make a remarkable difference to the
lives of Canadians, even in diseases where there is no known cure.
So we have instituted a breast cancer information exchange. We
have implemented strategies to reduce tobacco use, to counter
family violence, and we have introduced a prenatal nutrition
program to improve prospects for newborns at identifiable risk. We
have announced an aboriginal health head start program to address
the needs of aboriginal children living in urban centres and large
northern communities. We have embraced the axiom that good
health is the result of proper exercise and diet. My department
provides guidelines on nutrition and financial support for physical
fitness and active living.
Nobody wants to spend more money than is necessary on health.
We want to get the maximum value from every dollar. The road to
this objective passes through the prevention of illness and the
promotion of health through the development and support of
healthy communities.
16135
Dr. Brock Chisholm, former deputy minister in Canada and first
director general of the World Health Organization, once recast the
age-old saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of
cure. Dr. Chisholm said ``You can only cure retail, but you can
prevent wholesale''. We subscribe to that.
The new Department of Health will continue all the essential
work that has helped Canada reach and maintain its place on top of
the world rankings in health. However, as I said at the outset, we
intend to do far more than maintain hallowed traditions. We intend
to be a dynamic player in a world filled with new challenges and
innovative and creative opportunities for health and health care.
We will be open to exciting visions of the future that take full
account of the discontinuities and uncertainties of fast changing
times. We look to the national forum on health to help develop this
new vision for Canada's health system in the 21st century. We
believe the forum is an appropriate vehicle, one that respects the
rights of Canadians to be consulted on this matter of primary
importance. It brings expert opinion from many areas to bear. It
promotes dialogue with all segments of the public. It respects the
established and effective conference of federal-provincial health
ministers. The personal involvement of the Prime Minister as its
chair reflects the importance this government assigns to its
deliberations.
The national forum on health, which will maintain a dialogue
with Canadians, is a unique and important milestone in the
evolution of Canada's health care system. It also makes good on a
promise the Liberal Party made when it sought and received the
support of Canadians in the last election, a promise to strengthen
partnerships, to open doors to public input. The forum would bring
in for the first time in a meaningful and practical way the third
player on the health care team, the consumer.
I point out to hon. members that significant progress has been
made on the health commitments of the red book. Consider the
forum, aboriginal head start, prenatal nutrition, centres of
excellence for women's health, and on and on. Health is
everybody's business. It is an investment in the Canadian economy.
Health is an economic resource. Healthy people work, play, and are
active consumers.
(1340)
Studies done by many economic think tanks have shown the loss
to the economy through illness. So it is important to understand
that Canada's financial commitment to health care provides
considerable value for every dollar spent.
In 1972, when our health insurance system was completed,
Canada and the United States were spending approximately the
same level of gross domestic product on health, at 8.4 per cent of
gross domestic product. Since then we have done a far better job of
controlling spending. Last year Americans spent more than 14 per
cent of GDP on health, with 35 million citizens still uninsured,
while we spent about 9.7 per cent of gross domestic product on a
universal, comprehensive system where every Canadian has full
access, regardless of income level. This translates to $30 billion a
year in savings on health compared with the U.S. spending levels.
What about outcomes? OECD and WHO statistics show that
Canada ranks in the top three and sometimes is second in health
outcomes, while the United States still ranks between 15 and 17. I
say to the third party that more money does not mean better care.
Who gains from these savings? Canadian employers. Who has
high overhead costs to insure their employees against basic health
risks? Not Canadian businesses. We are among the big winners. In
fact major American companies have admitted that this is one
important reason to invest in Canada. Moreover, Canada's labour
market is more flexible and more mobile because problems with
health insurance do not deter workers from changing jobs.
This Canadian health dividend is not simply in the delivery of
health care services. It is sometimes unfairly alleged that medicare
is bureaucratic and eats up funds in administration and red tape.
The truth is quite the opposite. Health care administration costs
about $272 per person in Canada. In the United States it is about
250 per cent higher, at $615 U.S. per person.
Public administration, as one of the five principles of health
care, works. We only spend about 5 per cent of our health care
dollars on administration. The United States spends 25 per cent. It
was once decided by the United States Department of General
Accounting that if that 25 per cent spent on administration in the
United States were put into health care services, the 35 million
Americans who are not insured would be insured.
We are committed to managing effectively and prudently in
difficult financial times. There are many management strategies in
health care that are innovative, save dollars, and still ensure
quality, such as evidence based care, appropriate acute care,
community care, and assessment of technologies. But this all
means working in close co-operation with provinces and territories.
This government has taken great care to avoid duplication of
programs and services. If the provinces can administer a program
better, and in many cases they can, we let them do it. Our aim is to
co-operate and be flexible with the provinces in ways that ensure
there is no wasteful overlap. We consult widely within the field and
among all Canadians before we act.
I have spoken about the record of the health department that has
been its history and portends well for its future. It has been the
instrument for promoting high quality health care and improved
health status for Canadians at reasonable cost. It has earned and
maintained an international reputation for its efforts on health
promotion and disease prevention.
16136
I am therefore proud to sponsor this bill to create Canada's new
Department of Health. I urge all hon. members of the House to
afford it swift passage through Parliament.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to rise today to speak for 40 minutes to Bill C-95, an act to
establish the Department of Health and to amend and repeal certain
acts.
In fact, the purpose of this bill is to shorten the name of the
Department of Health and Welfare to Department of Health. Yet, in
reading Bill C-95, we realize that some sections have been
amended, repealed or added so that the government can, under the
pretence of providing good government, give the Minister of
Health the legitimate power to interfere once again in areas of
exclusive provincial jurisdiction. We are faced, once again, with
this overwhelming desire to centralize everything.
(1345)
Since I like setting the record straight, I will give you a short
history lesson.
As the type of political system that would prevail in the future
Canadian union was being defined in 1867, it was easy to see the
emergence of two opposite views of federal-provincial relations.
On one side, John Macdonald wanted a strong central government
that could devolve certain powers to the provinces as it saw fit. On
the other side, Cartier definitely favoured a highly decentralized
confederation. In French dictionaries, confederation is defined as
the union of several sovereign states.
We know only too well what this led to. Powers were indeed
distributed between the two levels of government, so that each
would have exclusive jurisdiction over their own areas of
responsibility.
But things are never as clear cut as they seem with the federal
government. The government kept in its hand what it considered as
a trump card, which proved to be harmful to federal-provincial
relations: the power to spend and to make laws for the peace, order
and good government of Canada.
This way, the federal government could still do as it pleased in
any provincial area of responsibility, without paying attention to
the distribution of powers guaranteed by the constitution. And this
was definitely planned and hoped for. This is confirmed by
Alexander Galt, one of the fathers of confederation, who stated that
the distribution of powers, as described in the British North
American Act of 1867, did not provide the provinces with enough
funding to properly look after the areas falling under their
jurisdiction. This means that the very document that gave rise to a
new Canadian union provided that the provinces would not have
sufficient funding and that the federal government should step in
to compensate the members of this union.
Unable to have a highly centralized federal system from day one,
John Macdonald made sure that its power to encroach would enable
it to intervene in any jurisdiction it pleased and to impose its views
on the provinces, even with respect to exclusive provincial
jurisdictions.
It may be difficult for some to recognize that this is what those
who drafted the British North America Act had in mind. It may be
difficult for them to believe that what they like to refer to, wrongly
I must say, as the most decentralized system in the world, already
provided, in its embryonic state, an increasing centralization of
power in favour of Ottawa.
Yet, the comments made by Alexander Galt, whom I quoted
earlier, leave no doubt as to those initial intentions, and nor do the
remarks made by another architect of the Act of 1867, who said
that, in the long run, the provinces would become nothing more
than large municipalities under the control of the federal
government, on which they would greatly depend. We were not
there at the time to see what was going on, but these people were,
and they even wrote about it.
This is how the structure in which we still live, unfortunately,
was developed and set up. I made reference to our history at the
very beginning of my speech to show that, to this day, and contrary
to what many would like us to believe, nothing has changed. This
centralizing vision which gives greater power to the federal
government is not mentioned in the speeches of today's key players
on the federal scene, but it is obvious in their actions. The best
example is certainly the health sector in general, where the federal
has been interfering constantly and increasingly for decades. Bill
C-95, which is now before us, is evidence of that.
Section 92.16 of the Constitution Act gives provinces
jurisdiction over health related issues on their territory, by
generally providing for all matters of a purely local or private
nature within a province. Moreover, sections 92.7, 92.13 and 92.16
of the same act also give the provinces jurisdiction over hospitals,
the medical profession and practice, as well as health related laws
in general, on their territory.
(1350)
We can say that this is an area of provincial jurisdiction since it
involves ownership and civil rights.
In the light of what I just said, it is obvious that health care is an
area which should come under provincial rather than federal
jurisdiction. However, the federal government has been interfering
in this area, in various ways, for several years now.
The Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, the
Medical Care Act and, more recently, the famous Canada Health
Act, which combines both previous acts and crystallizes so-called
national standards, show how the federal government deals with
areas of shared jurisdiction. Its initiatives aimed at increasing the
16137
federal presence in these areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction
are being justified by its spending power, which creates problems
not only in the health care area, but I will not have enough time to
list the many disputes it has caused, others will do it for me, I am
sure.
For my part, I will paint a picture showing what happens when a
government is unwilling to admit that it cannot afford to do and
decide everything on behalf of the provinces. This picture has as a
backdrop the acute crisis the health care system is going through in
Canada and Quebec.
The federal government's temptation or desire to interfere in the
health care area is not new. In fact, right after the second world war
the federal government took over all major fields of taxation to
make sure it would receive almost all the taxes normally levied by
the provinces.
At the end of the war, the government got a bright idea: instead
of giving the taxing powers back to the provinces, it would
redistribute the money through grants conditional on standards set
by the federal government. That was an ingenious way to encroach
even further upon areas not within the federal jurisdiction, at a time
when the London Privy Council, the equivalent in those days of our
Supreme Court, wanted to restrain the federal government's
tendency to centralize. In the health area, the Established Programs
Financing Act is a good example of what I said earlier: this
government refuses to accept that it cannot do everything and be
everywhere.
Created in 1977, the EPF program has kept the same structure
ever since. However, the growth rate has not been as expected over
the last ten years. That is what brought about the shortfall, as we
call it, for the provinces and Quebec in the health area. In 1986, the
federal government reduced the growth rate of transfers by 2 per
cent. It was the beginning of a long series of payment cuts. In 1989,
the indexing factor was again reduced by 1 per cent. In 1990, Bill
C-69 froze transfers to the 1989-90 level for two years supposedly.
In 1991, the government announced that the freeze would be
maintained for three more years. During most of that blighted
period for the health care system, the opposition cried its outrage. It
said loud and clear that this process could only push the system to
its own ruin.
But the same party, now in government, is weakening the system
even further. Between 1977 and 1994, the federal contribution to
health went from 45.9 per cent to 33.7 per cent, a drop of 10.6 per
cent which Quebec and the provinces have had to absorb as best
they could. Unfortunately, the mismanagement condemned not so
long ago by the Minister of Labour and the Deputy Prime Minister
seems to still be with us.
My predictions for 1997-98 are that the federal contribution will
slide as low as 28.5 per cent of funding. Over the years, as Ottawa
disengaged itself from health funding, Quebec alone was left $8
billion short. Eight billion dollars which the Government of
Quebec had to scramble to find elsewhere. To that figure can be
added the projected cuts in the Canada social transfer of $308
million in 1995-96 and more than $587 million in 1997-98.
(1355)
The leeway that was to be afforded by the Canada social transfer
is in reality merely the opportunity for Quebec and the provinces to
make their own choices as to where they would make the cuts to
absorb this unilateral disengagement. This is how the present
Liberal government sees decentralization. This is what it means by
flexible federalism. No thanks, we are not interested.
As I have already said, articles 92.7 and 16 of the British North
America Act allocate health and social services exclusively to the
provinces. There is, however, also a federal health department.
Next year, the federal Department of Health will cost the
taxpayers in excess of one billion dollars, a billion dollars wasted
doing what the governments of Quebec and the provinces could
very well do themselves.
Moreover, this superfluous department allocates sizeable
amounts for programs and projects already in existence in Quebec.
Let me give you some examples of these, Mr. Speaker: the strategy
for the integration of persons with disabilities, the campaign
against family violence, the new horizons program, the seniors
secretariat, the tobacco strategy, the drug strategy, the AIDS
strategy, the program on pregnancy and child development, the
children's bureau-I could go on and on.
The federal cuts should have been in these areas of duplication,
but it insists on having a finger in every pie, and the disastrous
effect on public finances does not seem to be enough to convince it
to accept reality.
The Speaker: I must interrupt you, dear colleague. You will
have the floor again after question period. It being two o'clock, the
House will now proceed to statements by members.
_____________________________________________
16137
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today the Vancouver Grizzlies basketball team will play its
inaugural game in the National Basketball Association in Portland,
Oregon. Arthur Griffiths and general manager Stu Jackson will
undoubtedly lead our new Vancouver basketball team to many
victories.
16138
There is a lot of anticipation in Vancouver. The Grizzlies will be
playing in the state of the art GM Place stadium which will give to
the team an advantage over the rest of the teams in the league. The
fans will not be disappointed because they will be treated to one of
the most exciting and popular sports in the world.
Canadians should be proud that they have two teams in the NBA
they can call their own. We have to build on the success of what
Canadian Dr. James Naismith started. The Vancouver Grizzlies and
the Toronto Raptors will do us proud.
I would also like to take this opportunity to wish to the
Vancouver Canucks good luck and success in their new season. The
Canucks will also be playing in the GM arena under general
manager Pat Quinn who assembled a talented and skilled team.
To the Vancouver Grizzlies and the Vancouver Canucks, bonne
chance.
* * *
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
surely this government finally gets the message that millions of
Canadians want change.
Today, Canada's borders may be intact but the unity of the
Canadian people is not. Canadians are divided into at least three
groups. One group, unhappy with today's way of life, wants to
leave. Another group wants to stay but leave our way of life as is,
the status quo. The third group wants to stay and make the
necessary changes to improve the Canadian way of life.
The group advocating the status quo by that very fact created the
existence of the other two groups. The status quo is not effective
and must now go into our history books. The group advocating
separation has been denied.
To avoid this reoccurring, this government must show leadership
and make the necessary changes. I invite the government to make
use of the new Confederation plan put forward by Reform. Copies
are available upon request, in plain brown envelopes if desired.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, Bill C-101 is about much more than the restructuring of
the rail system in western Canada. In reality and especially in
response to the loss of the Crow benefit, the legislation shifts the
balance of power unfairly to the ultimate benefit of the railways.
I ask the House not to forget that there are captive shippers out
there whose entire economy will be affected by the outcome of this
bill. More than 60,000 farmers in Saskatchewan have a direct
interest in the outcome of this bill. These farmers now pay the
entire cost of the shipping themselves. They are at the bottom of
the chain so to speak and cannot pass increased shipping costs on to
anyone else.
It is important to these producers to have quality railways and
quality, affordable rail services. It is also important to Canada to
have a successful farm sector because without these producers and
shippers the western economy will not grow.
Once again it seems that the Liberals are more concerned about
corporate profits than they are about the livelihoods of thousands of
prairie farmers.
* * *
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, since the founding of the United Nations the plight of
unwanted displaced peoples has occupied a central role in the
affairs of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
Since its creation in 1950 this organization has provided
temporary protection to millions of people displaced from their
homes by war, famine or political persecution. Canada has worked
with, supported and financed United Nations efforts to ensure that
people displaced and who are living in fear of persecution are
protected and resettled.
Refugees are a fundamental fact of the world in which we live.
Our challenge is not just to provide protection but to work with the
United Nations in peace building and creating the conditions for
safe repatriation of refugees to their countries of origin. Canadians
can rest assured that the government will continue to nurture the
excellent working relationship that it has with the Office of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
* * *
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to address the House today on a significant event that is
taking place in my riding.
The Long Point national wildlife area, Point Pelee National Park
and Prince Edward Point national wildlife area have all been
officially dedicated as Monarch Butterfly Reserves. As part of the
Canada-Mexico environmental co-operation program this
dedication adds to the already recognized environmental initiatives
that Long Point is involved in.
Long Point is a special place and is home to a diverse variety of
wildlife. Long Point is already recognized as a biosphere reserve
and Ramsar site. The combination of public and private lands that
make up this fragile piece of landscape together produce one of the
most unique and sensitive ecosystems in Canada today. Long Point
16139
is one of three locations where the Monarch butterfly concentrates
before its long journey to its wintering grounds in Mexico.
Most of us recognize the Monarch as a special butterfly and by
ensuring the future health and well-being of this insect
Elgin-Norfolk and all Canadians can take pride in being part of
this important environmental initiative.
I commend the Long Point Bird Observatory and the Norfolk
field naturalists.
* * *
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada has once
again shown world leadership. We have conducted a civilized
debate on the most serious subject a nation can face: its own
existence.
Where other countries have resorted to armed violence and
devastation to impose change, we have conducted a spirited but
peaceful campaign with the ultimate decision being made at the
ballot box. Let us all accept the decision made by the people of
Quebec with tolerance, openness and mutual respect. Let us
promptly respond to the need for change to our Confederation
fairly and equitably for all provinces and territories.
Let us work out our differences in the spirit of co-operation and
reasonable compromise. That is our trademark; that is the Canadian
way. Let us enter a new chapter of our illustrious history and again
face the world with confidence and pride. O Canada, we all truly
stand on guard for thee.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
behaviour of New Brunswick Premier Frank McKenna, who is
courting Quebec businesses to bring them to his province, is utterly
disgraceful. While begging Quebecers to vote no in the referendum
and asking them, once again, to believe in Canadian federalism,
Mr. McKenna was secretly working to take away their jobs.
What a great demonstration of love for the people of Quebec
from the Premier of New Brunswick. This is the man who, when
Quebec was in a weak position and making minimal demands, was
the first one to stab it in the back by repudiating the Meech Lake
accord.
The next time Quebecers have to make a decision on their future,
they will not be fooled by the real intentions and hypocritical
attitudes of people such as Mr. McKenna.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Alberta
government recently announced its own referendum on the future
of Albertans.
The vote is about freedom for Albertans. The vote is about the
devolution of power from the federal government to the province
and the people. The vote is about the very right of Albertans to
conduct business the way they choose in the future.
(1405)
In a country where people would respect the results of a
referendum which would allow one province to leave
Confederation, surely the government and the minister of
agriculture will respect the results of a plebiscite to give farmers a
choice on how to market their grain.
Between November 14 and 24, Alberta's 50,000 wheat and
barley farmers will have their say. The choice is between a
continued wheat board monopoly on buying wheat and barley or
the right to sell through the board or directly to any customer.
For Alberta farmers now is their chance. They should let their
voice be heard, get out and vote.
* * *
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
recent Quebec referendum was like the proverbial Chinese
two-sided coin. It created on the one side a feeling of deep anxiety
and on the other it awakened a sense of national pride in all
Canadians.
Even though the margin of victory was narrow, in the end we
were all winners. It is better to work for change together within a
united country than to negotiate bitterly as separate nations.
Quebecers showed faith in Canada by voting no. British
Columbians rekindled their national pride and francophones in
B.C. feel secure again in their heritage. It is time for the healing to
begin.
The strength of our country, which is its respect for differences,
must lead us forward together in a spirit of understanding and
compromise.
Canada has set out to prove that a diverse and multicultural
people with linguistic duality and varied heritage can live together
in peace and tolerance.
The world looks to us for inspiration and hope. Flawed though it
is, Canada is still the best country in the world in which to live.
16140
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois showed
unprecedented contempt for democracy in a statement he made the
day before yesterday as he was leaving the House.
He said, and I quote: ``Never again will sovereignists beg the rest
of Canada for anything. Never again will we negotiate on unequal
terms''. The Bloc leader must set his personal frustrations aside
and accept the outcome of Monday's referendum.
Quebecers have rejected the option of Quebec separation. As a
federal member of Parliament representing a Quebec riding, the
Bloc leader must acknowledge Quebecers' wishes. Separation has
been rejected. Let us now work on bringing about the changes that
Quebecers want within Canada.
* * *
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister's own riding, the riding of Saint-Maurice, voted
yes in the referendum. This was a strong yes, with 56 per cent of
the voters saying yes, or 9 per cent more than in the 1980
referendum.
The people of his own riding sent the message to the Prime
Minister that his vision of Quebec was not the right one. The yes
vote in the riding of Saint-Maurice means that people want more
than just the meaningless cosmetic changes proposed by the Prime
Minister. The yes vote in the riding of Saint-Maurice very clearly
shows that the people of Shawinigan want a country, a very
different country from the one that the hon. member for
Saint-Maurice is trying to sell them.
* * *
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
leader of the Parti Quebecois has announced that he will be leaving
the political arena. This announcement comes on the heels of one
of the most incredible statements of intolerance ever made by the
leader of a political party in the history of Quebec.
Some separatist strategists are already busy trying to convince us
that, with their leader gone, any trace of racism or xenophobia that
may have existed in the ranks of Quebec separatists will now
disappear. Let us not forget that the PQ leader was not the only one
to make this kind of racist comments.
Many of his associates have also indulged in this kind of
discriminatory remarks, but have not yet resigned. What are they
waiting for?
Only by respecting the verdict of the majority and finally getting
down to the real problems will the separatists convince the people
of Quebec that they really represent all of them.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
remarks by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister reveal
their contempt for the principles of fairness and unity.
While the Reform Party leader advanced a vision of Canada with
Quebec, it was the Prime Minister who proved to be the most
destructive force in the ``neverendum'' referendum.
Last night the Prime Minister compared the slim no vote victory
to a hockey game where one team wins by a goal. The coach should
be fired. This team went into the third period with a nine-point lead
and almost blew it.
(1410)
The Deputy Prime Minister praised the Liberal do nothing
campaign in Quebec and the efforts of their Mulroney soul mate
from Sherbrooke. She also attacked her opponents as being
vultures. In fact the only vultures that will be seen will be those
across the way, hovering over the discredited leader of the Liberal
Party as they look to replace him.
Still, this type of Liberal Party tactic does not surprise Canadians
because, as they know, if it looks like a rat, if it walks like a rat and
if it squeals like a rat, it is a member of the Liberal rat pack.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last night in Toronto, the Prime Minister of Canada
delivered an important speech in front of a large audience of
business people.
Not only did he highlight our government's main achievements
and reiterate our commitment to our red book promises, but he also
raised the issue of national unity. In his first major speech outside
Quebec since the referendum, he urged all Canadians to join forces
in bringing about the changes that are so anxiously awaited from
coast to coast.
The message delivered by our Prime Minister is one of stability,
reconciliation and optimism. I am pleased to associate myself with
what my leader said and I can assure the people of Canada that we
are fully committed to making this country a symbol of unity and
of prosperity.
16141
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, over the last few days, the Prime Minister once
again showed his true colours. The architect of the unilateral
patriation of the constitution in 1982 has once again decided to put
Quebec in its place. Indeed, after stating that he would not abide by
Quebecers' decision if they voted yes, the Prime Minister is now
saying that he will muzzle them by keeping them from holding
another referendum.
The Prime Minister said that he would not hesitate to use every
power available to keep Quebecers from exercising that legitimate
right again. Nothing has changed. The uncompromising and
centralizing federalism of Pierre Elliot Trudeau is still very much
alive in the Prime Minister's mind.
As far as he is concerned, Quebec is a province like any other,
and it must stay that way. Just forty-eight hours after Monday's
referendum, Canada is in a catch 22 situation since federalism
remains impervious to any real change, while Quebecers are not
interested in the status quo.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there are rare occasions in the history of a nation when
fate opens up a window of opportunity that can change the course
of a country forever. Such an opportunity now exists.
The referendum process and subsequent results show Quebec to
be a province that is deeply divided and have highlighted the
intense desire for all provinces to deal with the problems that affect
us all.
We must seize the opportunity now to move ahead to
decentralize federal powers. The people must also be allowed to
choose their representatives in the Senate and in the Supreme
Court. However, let there be no mistake. These changes must occur
for all provinces because when preferential treatment is afforded to
one province over another it only creates divisions and resentment.
We must move ahead. The time now is for leadership. We must
not look back in history and use past history to justify breaking the
country apart. We must move ahead and heal the wounds that exist
in the country today to bring all Canadians together in a strong and
united Canada forever.
[Translation]
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, I want to
pay tribute to Mr. Jacques Parizeau who, two days ago, resigned
and announced his intention to retire from political life.
Notwithstanding our conflicting views on Quebec's future, the
fact is that Mr. Parizeau has played an extremely important role in
the building of a modern province.
He was an economic advisor to several premiers. He helped set
up the Quebec deposit and investment fund. He provided advice to
the government of Mr. Lesage on the government's takeover of the
hydro sector. He was a key player in the quiet revolution.
Mr. Parizeau was also a man of conviction who worked hard to
achieve his objective. I want to express my deep respect toMr. Parizeau and to his wife, Lisette Lapointe, as they begin
another stage of their lives.
_____________________________________________
16141
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1415)
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in a speech he made last night in Toronto, the Prime
Minister made a new contribution to Canadian democracy. First, he
confided it was frustrating to see Quebecers vote in a referendum
on their sovereignty and thus undermine Canada's political
stability. In concluding his speech, he made it clear that he would
intervene to prevent any more votes of this kind.
My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Would she
oblige by telling us what the federal government intends to do to
prevent democracy in Quebec from voting in accordance with its
own laws?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the difference between the
Prime Minister and the Premier of the next party the Leader of the
Opposition will soon be leading is that the Prime Minister of
Canada says he recognizes the fact that all Quebecers have the
same right to vote.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Except that he wants to take that right away from them, Mr.
Speaker.
16142
The same rights, meaning that no one will be able to vote.
Mr. Speaker, living in a democracy is clearly getting to the Prime
Minister.
Are we to understand that from now on, instead of rejecting the
results of the referendum, as he was about to do if the yes side had
won, the leader of the federal government will prevent any future
referendums? By even considering such extreme positions, is this
gentleman not demonstrating the depth of his despair and his utter
inability to overcome his inertia?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the difference between the
Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister of Canada is that
the Prime Minister accepted the results of the referendum.
We heard the Leader of the Opposition say on the night of the
referendum that he accepted the people's decision. I hope that when
he arrives in Quebec City very shortly, he will listen to his own
ministers, including Serge Ménard who said Wednesday, and I
quote: ``It seems sensible to have only one referendum. This effort
to reach a consensus, which is the whole point of a referendum,
means we must consult before imposing. We will have to wait until
the next election when we will tell them what our plans are. We
must deal with the problems of Quebecers, get our public finances
back into shape and govern''.
Mr. Speaker, we also heard comments from the Minister of
Justice in Mr. Bouchard's new government, who said, and I quote:
``You do not have a referendum because you lost the first one and
you think you will have a better result three weeks later''. That
shows respect for the democratic system.
The Speaker: Again, my dear colleagues, I would ask you to
refer to each other by the names of your ridings.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, all sovereignist Quebecers who voted Yes, 49.4 per cent,
are still paying taxes to Ottawa and observing federal laws because
they acknowledge the fact that democracy in Quebec has spoken. I
said it before and I say it again: We are democrats first and
foremost, and the first duty of democrats and citizens is to respect a
democratic vote like the one held Monday in Quebec.
That being said, we should also realize that the people are
masters of their right to vote and that if some day the people of
Quebec decide to have another referendum, they can do that. We
just had a reference to what was said by the Minister of Justice,
who was merely referring to the Quebec law that provides that, in
order to have another referendum, there must first be an election.
And eventually we will have an election in Quebec, since we are a
democracy and elections are part of being a democracy.
People will always be able to vote in Quebec. That does not seem
to be the case in Canada.
(1420)
Will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that the federal
government is now resorting to such undemocratic measures as
banning a vote, simply because it is afraid that a future referendum
will make Quebec a sovereign country?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the difference, and I say this
again because it is very important that it be remembered, is that on
the evening of the referendum, Mr. Parizeau himself said that they
lost because of the ethnic vote and people with money.
Three weeks before, the leader opposite made an appeal to the
white race and never apologized. The difference between the Prime
Minister and the Leader of the Opposition is that the Prime
Minister respects the word and the vote of all Quebecers. All
Quebecers voted in the referendum, and the majority voted no. We
respect the outcome. And we assumed he would do the same.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy
Prime Minister cannot get off like that. When we are talking to her
about respect for democracy-
An hon. member: What respect?
Mr. Gauthier: -quoting words from all over the place. This is
not the question at issue.
This is not the issue, Mr. Speaker. The issue is respecting
democracy. In his speech in Toronto, the Prime Minister said
yesterday that the rest of Canada had been-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Gauthier: They should listen, Mr. Speaker, this would show
them what their Prime Minister thinks. It is not always nice.
In his speech in Toronto, the Prime Minister said that the rest of
Canada had been extremely generous in letting Quebec hold not
one, but two, referendums.
Mr. Bouchard: Such generosity.
Mr. Gauthier: What generosity, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Loubier: Thank you very much.
Mr. Bouchard: Thank you so much.
An hon. member: Quebec, we love you.
Mr. Gauthier: In addition to our warmest thanks to the Prime
Minister.
An hon. member: Thank you so much.
An hon. member: We love you.
Mr. Manley: Sit down and shut up.
Mr. Manning: If there is no question, sit down.
16143
Mr. Gauthier: Are we to understand, Mr. Speaker, that the
Prime Minister of Canada is now questioning the right of
Quebecers to decide their political future? That is the question.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite is
hauling out words from all over the place. The words I quoted
earlier-
An hon. member: Answer the question.
Ms. Copps: -are not words from all over the place, these are
the words of the Quebec justice minister, who, I wager, will be in
the Leader of the Opposition's caucus soon. He said that Quebecers
do not hold a referendum because they lost the first one and think
they could score better three weeks later. These are the words of the
Quebec justice minister.
What is important is that we remember the words of the Leader
of the Opposition the evening he talked about the results. He said
that the referendum debate had demonstrated Quebecers'
discipline, political maturity and their profound attachment to
democratic values, and that the wishes and democratic vote of
Quebecers deserved respect.
We cannot chose a white race, like the Leader of the Opposition
did. We must respect the vote of all Quebecers. Let us hope he will
do so.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there are
limits. The Prime Minister of Canada has just said we are lucky he
allowed us to hold a referendum. We question the Deputy Prime
Minister on it, on the right of Quebecers to decide their future
themselves, and she answers any old thing. This is scandalous.
Some hon. members: Indeed.
Mr. Gauthier: Are we to understand that the Prime Minister of
Canada has just taken upon himself to decide the limits of
democracy in Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister in his
speech last night defended the right of all Quebecers. He took a
page from the book of the Leader of the Opposition who said last
Canada Day that we live in the most democratic country in the
world. The people of Quebec spoke.
(1425 )
An hon. member: That is not true anymore.
Ms. Copps: It was true on Monday night. Between Monday
night and Wednesday somehow it is not true anymore but the
reality is-
Mr. Bouchard: You have changed it.
An hon. member: No way. You can't take the heat.
An hon. member: Vote yes and it is democratic.
[Translation]
Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, on the subject of democracy, the most
unfortunate part is that the Leader of the Opposition never took
back the words spoken by Mr. Parizeau the other night. The Leader
of the Opposition's remarks about the white race three weeks ago
were never taken back. This reveals that it is not the Prime Minister
who fails to respect Quebecers' right to vote, it is Lucien Bouchard
and the Parti Quebecois.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in his
speech last night, the Prime Minister indicated that he is not
prepared to tolerate any more referendums on Quebec sovereignty.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. We
are wondering exactly how it is that the government intends to
achieve this. For example, is it considering a federal law to outlaw
provincial referendums? Exactly what is it proposing?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again there is an
opportunity for the Reform Party to join the ranks of Canadians
who frankly want all of the country to get on to governance.
Instead, he is salivating for another referendum because he did not
like the results of the first one.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what
Canadians want from this government are answers to some simple
questions. They do not want to see the government defending the
same kind of demagoguery we have here sometimes.
If the separatists cannot have another referendum on Quebec
sovereignty, which I suspect they would be ill advised to pursue in
the near future, they may try simply to seek a mandate through an
election, something which would be much easier to achieve.
Does the government really think that this would be a better
alternative for Canada than a referendum?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the best way to avoid another referendum is clearly to
effect changes in the distinct society clause or in the right of veto,
but especially changes that affect the respective powers of the
federal and provincial governments.
We have already started to make these changes. They have been
indicated. The federal government is now redefining its role and
responsibilities. We are doing it at a lower cost to Canadians
because we will be reducing the size of the federal government by
20 per cent.
16144
(1430 )
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
terms of the government's nascent constitutional agenda, it would
be advised to pursue unity by pursuing those issues on which
Canadians agree and not those issues on which they are divided.
Yesterday the Prime Minister said he would propose a
constitutional veto not for the Government of Quebec but for the
people of Quebec. I would presume that is by referendum. Now he
says he does not want more referendums in Quebec.
Does he foresee further consultations of the people in Quebec
and outside Quebec on their constitutional future or not?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no doubt that considerable changes are needed in
the Canadian federation. I think we all agree on this.
The federal government has to play a leadership role. It has to
redefine its roles and responsibilities. It has to clean up its act. It
has started to do that. The various means that will be used in the
future either to clarify the constitutional position or to redefine the
jurisdictions of all levels of government will be taken whenever
necessary by whatever means necessary.
But we must not forget that Canada is not just an addition of 10
provinces. It is all Canadians voting together in a federal set-up in
order to elect a government and representatives that look at
national interests, not only provincial interests.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition publicly dissociated himself
from the words of Mr. Parizeau the very next day here in this
House, and I therefore accuse the Deputy Prime Minister of having
knowingly lied to this House a few moments ago.
The Speaker: My dear colleague, I must ask you respectfully to
please withdraw the words you used here a few minutes ago
concerning the Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I respect you, but I also respect what
I am as well as the truth, unlike the Deputy Prime Minister, and I
cannot withdraw my words.
* * *
The Speaker: My colleagues, as you know, we must always
show respect for each other here in the House. When I ask you to
withdraw your words, regardless of what those words are, it is with
the full authority of the House of Commons that I ask it of you.
[English]
We are in pretty tense times for our nation. If it surprises you that
I am going to act as quickly as I am, I do so knowing full well that
my primary responsibility in the House of Commons is to see to it
that the institution itself is respected by all of us.
I have asked the hon. member for Laurier-Saint-Marie-
[Translation]
-to withdraw his words and he has refused to do so.
(1435)
Therefore, Mr. Duceppe, I must name you for disregarding the
authority of the Chair. Pursuant to the authority vested in me under
Standing Order 11, I order you to withdraw from the House for the
remainder of today's sitting.
[Editor's Note: And Mr. Duceppe having withdrawn:]
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
night the Prime Minister told Canadians that he understood full
well their frustration at having to sit on the sidelines during the
referendum and said that he would not let it happen again.
However, in question period yesterday the Prime Minister flatly
rejected the idea of consulting Canadians directly through
constituent assemblies.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. If not through
referendum, if not through constituent assemblies, then how does
she plan to consult Canadians on the future of their country?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a few days before the final
vote a call went out to Canadians from coast to coast to coast to
come to Quebec to show their solidarity with Canada.
Members of Parliament from every political party responded to
that call. Unfortunately of 52 Reform members of Parliament, 51
of them were too busy doing other things to respond to the call to
Canada.
We have a responsibility as members of Parliament with our
constituents to continue to work for a better democracy. Hopefully
the next time the Reform Party will be working with us and not
against us.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, may I
remind the Deputy Prime Minister that Reformers from across the
country were at the Montreal rally, the people, not the politicians
speaking out.
It was evident from the results of the Charlottetown accord that
Canadians do not want to see distinct society status or
constitution-
16145
al vetoes brought in. They want to see the federal government
decentralizing power, in fact loosening the grip and the
stranglehold it has on powers. The west wants it, Ontario wants it,
and Quebec Liberal leader Daniel Johnson wants it.
When will the Deputy Prime Minister start living up to this
promise of changing the way the federation operates and begin the
actual transfer of powers to the provinces?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 1929 the Senate
recognized that women politicians were persons. I hope that when
we were in Montreal, we the people were there but we the
politicians were also there.
Unfortunately it was a calculated decision of Reform Party
members to sit on the sidelines. It was a reflection of the decision
they made throughout the campaign because frankly they did not
support the option of Quebecers staying in Canada.
Speaking of sharing of power, I was in Whitehorse only 10 days
ago when we had unanimous-
Miss Grey: Giving, not sharing.
Ms. Copps: ``Giving it'', she says, ``not sharing it''.
In Whitehorse only 10 days ago we had unanimous agreement of
all ministers of the environment, including the minister of the
environment for Alberta, of harmonization where we share
responsibility, not just a giveaway.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ.): Mr.
Speaker, knowing that the Leader of the Opposition dissociated
himself immediately and the day after from Mr. Parizeau's words, I
would ask the Deputy Prime Minister through you if she will have
the decency to apologize in this House, asking the pardon of the
Leader of the Opposition for having put words in his mouth that he
never said and for which he apologized publicly. I would ask her to
have the decency to withdraw her words.
(1440)
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it must be kept in mind that
the present leader of the Parti Quebecois was not the first to bring
up race. In fact, in a speech before the referendum, it was the hon.
member for Lac-Saint-Jean who played the race card, who asked
those in the French speaking white race to have babies.
I asked for an apology the next day. I have never, never heard any
apology from the member across the floor, and I am still waiting
for one.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the longer the Deputy Prime Minister talks, the more she
piles it on, and the more she lies to this House.
An hon. member: Liar.
Mr. Bellehumeur: She is a liar.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, this is the second time today.
Mr. Bouchard: She is the one that needs speaking to.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
[English]
You can see, my colleagues, the reason why it is not acceptable
to use unparliamentary language.
I would remind you with all respect, that we are the
parliamentarians of Canada and this is where we have come to
debate, with respect and with dignity.
[Translation]
I am asking once that the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm
withdraw his words.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition
publicly dissociated himself from the words of Mr. Parizeau. I shall
withdraw my words only once the Deputy Prime Minister has
retracted-
* * *
(1445)
The Speaker: Mr. Bellehumeur, I must name you for
disregarding the authority of the Chair.
Pursuant to the authority vested in me under Standing Order 11, I
order you to withdraw from the House for the remainder of today's
sitting.
[Editor's Note: And Mr. Bellehumeur having withdrawn:]
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister has been promising us that big administrative
changes are in the works. Under the Constitution, natural resources
are the exclusive domain of the provinces, yet the federal
government continues to meddle in this area of provincial
responsibility. Reform's new confederation proposals would
reduce the federal government's role in natural resources to a bare
minimum.
What specific changes does the Prime Minister propose to
reduce the federal role in natural resources?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
16146
I can take this opportunity to explain that we are not meddling
in the area of provincial jurisdiction. In fact, during program
review last year leading up to the February 1995 budget, my
department took the opportunity to consult with all the provinces.
We have worked co-operatively and collaboratively with the
provinces so that we do not have overlapping duplication any
longer in the resource sectors.
We have defined our role and the provinces have defined theirs.
As far as I know, they are reasonably happy with that.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
provincial ministers of energy and mines have been urging their
federal counterpart to harmonize regulations. Over the past two
months their letters to the minister have gone unanswered as they
have tried to organize a meeting with her, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs and the provincial ministers of energy
and mines and resources. In fact in a letter the ministers expressed
``major concern about the lack of recent progress and the loss of
momentum on harmonization efforts''.
Will the minister arrange today a meeting with her, the Minister
of Intergovernmental Affairs and their provincial counterparts to
discuss the harmonization issue?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the ministers of intergovernmental affairs, both provincial
and federal, are always discussing these possible changes. In fact
just today I was in contact with one of them in order to try to see
whether we could increase the harmonization in terms of questions
of natural resources, decentralization, and the efficiency of the
federation initiative.
We are working all the time, trying to reach new ways of
governing the federation that are less costly to people and that
permit the federal and provincial governments to govern where
they are most efficient.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
The minister will probably be interested to read in today's
newspapers that during the first four months of the current fiscal
year, from April to July, Quebec was $322 million over budget on
welfare payments. This sad state of affairs is due to the fact that
more families in Quebec are on welfare than was expected.
Will the minister finally admit that repeated cuts in
unemployment insurance are to blame for this sharp increase in
welfare costs in Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been over this ground
several times.
It is important to point out to the hon. member and to members
of the House that in fact the rate of increase for social assistance
caseloads in the province of Quebec has declined over the past
year, from an average rise of about 8 per cent down to 1.5 per cent,
which simply does not jibe with the facts she is putting out. Over
the last four months, since the month of August, there has been a
net decline of about 7,000 in the caseloads. The reason for that, as
we know, is that we have been very successful in creating over
125,000 jobs in Quebec over the last two years.
(1450)
Under the UI changes we brought in last year, we provided a
special benefit for those on low income so that those who have
dependants or children would be able to receive an additional
$1,000 over and above their regular benefits, which meant that over
130,000 Quebecers alone were able to get those additional benefits.
This summer I was able to sign an important agreement with the
Government of Quebec to provide $81 million directly to social
assistance recipients so they would receive an income supplement
that would enable them to go back to work and receive enough
income.
Rather than spending her time trying to argue about small
minutia of details and figures, what we should be talking about is
how do we come together as two levels of government to help the
real people who have real needs. That is the real issue.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the
minister refers to 20,000 more people on welfare as small minutiae,
details and figures, in a so-called period of prosperity, at a time the
government is about to cut welfare subsidies in the Canada social
transfer, what will it be like in the next recession? This is
unacceptable.
Will the minister finally admit that further draconian cuts he is
about to make in unemployment insurance will put even more
families on welfare and make the budgetary problems of the
Quebec government even worse?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the hon.
member and other members of the Bloc and the Parti Quebecois
have been trying to say to the people of Quebec in a really quite
deliberate effort to give out misinformation, I will tell the hon.
member that one of the most important elements we are putting
together as part of the new
16147
unemployment insurance package is what the Prime Minister
talked about in his speech last night. He said that we will provide
basic protection for families on low income with children. It is
something we have been talking about in this country for a long
time, and we intend to do it.
I would say to the hon. member that rather than arguing old
arguments she should be putting her attention now to helping
govern this country better so we can really help poor people, rather
than simply trying to break up this country. That is the best way of
providing security and civility.
* * *
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the secretary of state for foreign affairs.
Canadians are concerned about the Sri Lankan government's
current major military offensive on the people of the Jaffna
Peninsula. The civil war and massive attack is resulting in a serious
threat to the civilian Tamil population and the further displacement
of large numbers of people.
Can the secretary tell the House what role Canada is playing to
stop this bloodshed?
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to pay tribute
to our ambassador to China, who passed away Tuesday.
Ambassador John Paynter served Canada well, both in India and in
China. We offer our condolences to his wife Inga and his three
children.
To answer the hon. member's question, indeed we are very
concerned about the situation in Sri Lanka. This summer I
personally travelled to that country on a fact finding mission.
During that trip I told the President of Sri Lanka that we were
disappointed at the unilateral resumption of hostility in Sri Lanka
by the LTTE on April 19 after 14 weeks of peace. However, at the
same time we also expressed our concern to the government that a
military solution was not an option in Sri Lanka. We continue to
urge the government and the LTTE to resume negotiations for a
peaceful solution.
Canada has been saddened at the continuation and escalation of
the conflicts in Sri Lanka and with the large loss of life. Canada
totally condemns the slaughter of innocent persons, both Tamil and
Sinhalese, in Sri Lanka in recent days. This slaughter is not helping
the situation.
(1455)
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister for Human Resources Development
admitted that the Canada pension plan is unsustainable. In
response, he announced another tax grab. He is raising payroll
taxes despite the fact that in his budget the Minister of Finance
stated that payroll taxes are a cancer on job creation.
How high is the government planning to raise payroll taxes to
prop up a system facing collapse?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows,
the whole question of the financing of the Canada pension plan is
under review.
We will be tabling in the House before the end of the year a paper
that will put forward a series of recommendations. It is an area that
must be worked out with the provinces. It is a joint sharing of
responsibility to ensure that the tens of millions of Canadians who
rely upon the Canada pension plan, which is a pooled sharing fund,
will be able to sustain it and be able to give absolute certainty and
surety to not only this generation of pension holders but future
generations that the Canada pension plan will provide a very stable
foundation for their security in old age.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that
last comment is not even worth responding to. The system is facing
collapse by the year 2010.
Our plans for renewing the Canada pension plan include
protecting seniors' benefits without raising payroll taxes. These are
the kinds of positive changes Reform is offering in its new
confederation.
Is the Minister of Human Resources Development prepared to
roll back this tax increase and forget this obscene attack on jobs?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says she
does not want to comment on the program that has been in place for
several decades helping provide protection. In fact the hon.
member tabled a report from the Reform Party that would totally
eviscerate any kind of security for disabled people, for survivors
with children, for seniors, and which would eliminate all kinds of
payments for low income Canadians.
This member is the authoress of a program that would totally
undermine the public pension plan of Canada.
16148
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, again today prairie farmers are attempting to freelance
grain sales into the United States, increasing trade tension with the
United States and risking the imposition of yet another cap on
sales.
Is the minister of agriculture prepared to say today that he will
not let Canada run the risk of being shut out of the U.S. market by
telling Canadians that he is prepared to ensure the enforcement of
single desk selling through the Canadian Wheat Board?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the law of Canada with respect to
the powers and authorities of the Canadian Wheat Board is very
clear. That law has been on the books of this country for a long
time, and by and large that law has been respected. It ought to be
respected.
Those who hold contrary views and wish to see some changes in
the legal system that presently exists can bring their views forward
and let those views be debated and discussed. We have established
a procedure for that to occur.
I would advise those who deliberately violate the law that they
are in no way advancing their own case. They are in fact in the
process of undermining democracy. Beyond the point of the illegal
nature of their actions, they are also raising the spectre of a very
serious trade problem with the United States, which could
undermine the incomes and the livelihoods of all Canadian
farmers.
I would carefully advise those who contemplate violations of the
law that they ought to respect the law, because illegal activity does
not accomplish anything. Second, they are running the risk of very
serious trade repercussions.
(1500)
The Speaker: My colleagues, this brings question period to an
end.
I have notice of a question of privilege and also three or four
points of order that I will hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
The Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition is rising on a
question of privilege. Could he tell me whether it concerns
something that happened during Question Period?
Mr. Bouchard: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition, on a question of
privilege.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, just now everyone heard the Deputy Prime Minister say I
did not dissociate myself from the comments made by Mr. Parizeau
on the night of the referendum. In fact, the very next day in a media
scrum here in the lobby of the House of Commons, I publicly and
clearly dissociated myself from his comments. I also pointed out
that those who voted in the referendum on Monday were all
Quebecers, that we are still all Quebecers and that no distinction
should be made between the votes cast.
My statement was brought to the attention of the Deputy Prime
Minister earlier today, twice in fact, by two Bloc members, but she
refused to withdraw her accusation.
What she said implies that, by remaining silent, I approved of
and agreed with what Mr. Parizeau said. This constitutes a violation
of my rights as a parliamentarian and an attack on my reputation.
In the name of parliamentary democracy, I would ask you to
discuss this with the Deputy Prime Minister and give her one last
chance to do the right thing by asking her to withdraw what she
said.
The Speaker: My dear colleagues, what the Leader of the
Opposition heard or did not hear may be very unpleasant and he
may feel aggrieved. However, in my opinion, what someone said or
did not say constitutes not a question of privilege but debate. That
is my decision.
Instead of seeking to continue what is in fact a debate, my
decision is that this is not a question of privilege.
[English]
I have a point of order. The hon. whip of the Reform Party.
* * *
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
may need your help on this. The closest I can get in Beauchesne's is
perhaps citation 481(e). The point is this. The Deputy Prime
Minister today made two deliberate falsehoods: one concerning,
alleging-
(1505 )
The Speaker: I address myself, of course, directly to the whip of
the Reform Party.
My colleague, the words that you have used that one of our
members made a deliberate falsehood is not acceptable and I would
like you to withdraw it.
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the words deliberate
falsehood, although I believe it.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
16149
The Speaker: I put it to you squarely, my colleague. Will you
withdraw, yes or no?
Mr. Ringma: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the word
falsehood.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I accept the withdrawal completely, without
explanation. I am going to let that sit there.
If the hon. member has a point of order, I would like him to put it
to me forthwith.
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that there were
two wrong statements made in the House this afternoon.
One accused the Reform Party of deliberately having a policy of
not supporting the parade in Montreal and the other was a
statement that the Reform Party deliberately wanted the yes side to
win.
Those two statements are totally erroneous.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: My colleagues, it is not for your Speaker to judge
that which is or is not erroneous in the statements made in the
course of debate or question and answer period.
With all respect to my hon. colleague, the Reform whip, I would
say that what he has said could be a point of debate, surely. If he
does not agree with this statement, we go through this every day in
here.
My decision is that it is not a point of order. I will hear a point of
order from the hon. member for Calgary Centre.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, in light of what you had to do today in
naming two members, does it mean that because the numbers have
changed that we are now the official opposition?
(1510 )
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): We want the money.
The Speaker: That might be a point of clarification, but it is not
a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, tone of
voice in this place can be as important as what is actually said.
During question period the Deputy Prime Minister, in answer to a
question from the member for Beaver River, said that 51 Reform
MPs were too busy doing other things to attend the Montreal rally.
The tone of voice used by the Deputy Prime Minister imputed
motive and inferred that-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[Translation]
The Speaker: We will have the Thursday question in a moment.
I want to give my response here.
[English]
Colleagues, it is true that not only words may be offensive in this
House, indeed unparliamentary. It is true that the tone of an answer
might also cause your Speaker to say that such and such a statement
is unparliamentary.
I was listening very closely to the debate. Although many
statements today were offensive to one side or the other, in my
view as far as the decorum of this House and the conducting of the
question period are concerned, they were within the area of
acceptability.
With regard to that particular point of privilege, I would rule it
was not a point of privilege.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise, not
on a point of order, but to ask the Thursday question. I would like
our colleague to tell us what is on the legislative agenda.
[English]
The Speaker: The hon. solicitor general.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am speaking today as government House leader.
The Speaker: You will forgive me, you look the same. The hon.
government House leader.
Mr. Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want the record of the House to show I
am speaking in a calm, measured tone of voice with no intention of
sarcasm or innuendo.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Gray: It is our intention to continue with the list of items
already being considered by the House today. I am referring to
second reading of Bill C-95, the reorganization of the Department
of Health; third reading of Bill C-94 relating to fuel additives;
second reading of Bill C-96, the human resources development
department reorganization, and report stage and third reading of
Bill C-52, the Department of Public Works and Government
Services reorganization.
Tomorrow we would like to deal with Bill C-108, the National
Housing Act amendments. We would then resume the list I have
just read out.
16150
Finally, we will be in ongoing consultations with the opposition
parties about the scheduling of other business, including
opposition days.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, may I put a
question to the government House leader? My colleagues and I are
deeply concerned about the government's fall agenda.
The facts, as I look at them, in the last 46 or 47 days are as
follows. Just four new bills have been introduced in this House, no
aging paper has been presented, no UI legislation has been tabled.
There has been a refusal to call bills which the separatists object to.
Twelve of nineteen bills were such-
The Speaker: I would take it this has to do with House business.
With all respect, I would ask the House leader of the Reform Party
to please put his question.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will do that.
I plead with the government House leader to commit this House
to a serious legislative agenda before the end of this fall session and
I would like to know what it is.
(1515 )
At this point in time we have had no indication of any kind of
serious legislation; not even the voice of intent, never mind
something in concrete form.
Mr. Gray: Mr. Speaker, when we resumed the session I said we
had some 30 measures waiting on the Order Paper from the end of
the session in June for debate. I said that we would be proceeding in
an orderly fashion with those measures as a priority.
I do not know why our colleagues think we should have scrapped
all those measures. I thought they wanted a measure to tighten up
the parole and correction system, Bill C-45. Now they are on record
as opposing that. I thought they wanted a measure to have a better
witness protection system, Bill C-58. Now they are on record as
opposing that.
Now that we have dealt with a bill to create an environmental
auditor general, they are in effect saying that was not worth while.
Now that we are dealing with measures on dangerous fuel
additives, they are saying they did not want those measures to be
debated. Now that we have debated a measure to update our
transportation regulations, the Reform Party is saying that was not
worth while.
I will conclude my remarks without your saying anything,Mr. Speaker. I can see your face; a tone of voice is not necessary.
On each and every one of the measures they participated in the
debate. They put down amendments. They called for votes. By
their actions they are saying the House leader for the Reform Party
simply does not know what he is talking about.
16150
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, could
you tell me how much time I have left?
The Speaker: You have 27 minutes.
Mrs. Picard: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to begin to debate a bill
and be interrupted by question period, but I will nevertheless
summarize a bit what I said and then to on.
We are debating an act to establish the Department of Health and
to amend and repeal certain Acts. I had said that, in fact, the bill
was aimed at replacing the name of the Department of Health and
Welfare by the shortened title of Department of Health.
Generally, not a lot of sections have changed, but in reading this
bill, we realize that certain sections have been changed, repealed or
added, only some. In some cases we see that the government, as a
good government, is once again legitimizing its authority and is
giving the Minister of Health authority to intervene yet again in
areas that are under exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
I gave a brief history and I am going to summarize what I said to
conclude with the clauses I mentioned earlier, which provide the
powers of the minister, who may intervene in areas of provincial
jurisdiction.
Under section 92(7.16) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and
according to the courts, the sectors of health and social services are
exclusively under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the other
provinces. Since as far back as 1919, Ottawa has been getting
increasingly involved in these sectors, forcing Quebec even here to
comply with so called national standards and objectives.
(1520)
As far as we are concerned, federal initiatives in the area of
health and welfare, except for those dealing specifically with
certain groups of people-members of the Canadian Forces,
sailors, Indians, immigrants and prisoners-have no clear
constitutional basis. They depend entirely on the federal
government's spending power, which allows it to take many more
major initiatives.
In 1919, the Department of Health was created and the first
subsidies granted. In 1948, the national health subsidy program
was introduced. In 1957, the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic
Services Act was passed by Parliament. The Medical Care Act was
16151
passed in 1966, and the Canada Health Act, known as Bill C-6, in
1984. The Canada Health Act replacing the 1957 and 1966 laws set
national standards and imposed requirements limiting the
autonomy of Quebec and the provinces. Bill C-6 set out provincial
obligations: universality, accessibility, interprovincial portability,
public administration, and comprehensiveness. Failure to meet
these criteria may lead the federal government to withhold transfer
payments to the provinces for health care.
As early as 1926, Quebec denounced the federal government's
interference in the area of health, and the reservations then
expressed by the Taschereau government were reiterated by every
succeeding administration. Health Canada has become so big that
its 1995-96 estimates set aside $1.5 billion for operating
expenditures-$347 million for personnel costs and $703 million
for goods and services-and $6.9 billion for transfer payments.
However, this contribution to the provinces, which is, as I was
saying, subject to compliance with national standards, does not
prevent the federal government from going ahead with its own
health and welfare initiatives, as shown by the list I just gave you
on the subject of duplication.
The 1991 national strategy for the integration of persons with
disabilities, with a budget of $46 million over five years; the 1991
federal initiative against violence, with a budget of $136 million
over four years; the new horizons program; the seniors secretariat;
the national strategy to reduce tobacco use; the national drug
strategy; the national AIDS strategy; the pregnancy and child
development program; the children's bureau, the national forum on
health. All these initiatives directly encroach on existing programs.
Such cases of overlap and duplication cost a lot of money.
I would now like to make a few comments on the government's
red book commitment with respect to the national forum on health.
With respect to health, the federal government does not intend to
cut any slack to the provinces, as promised in the fall 1993 election
campaign, when its intention to hold a national forum on health, if
it was elected, was made public.
The federal health minister made no secret of Ottawa's
centralizing designs. During its election campaign, the Liberal
Party of Canada released a document entitled ``Creating
Opportunity: The Liberal Plan for Canada'', better known as the
red book. Reference is made in this book to being committed to
holding a national forum on health, and the way this commitment is
worded hardly conceals the federal government's desire to take
control over health care in Canada. Let me read you what it says.
``The role of the federal government should include the
mobilization of effort to bring together Canada's wealth of talent
and knowledge in the health care field.'' If that is not the
expression of a will to centralize, I do not know what is. ``This is a
societal issue in which every Canadian has an interest. The federal
government must provide the means to ensure that Canadians are
involved and informed, and can understand the issues and the
options.''
(1525)
On june 29, 1994, despite the objections of the provinces, the
federal health minister announced the creation of this forum. To
date, four work sessions have been held, and not one province is
represented at this forum. The forum's mandate is to develop a
vision of what the Canadian health care system will be in the 21st
century; foster dialogue with Canadians concerning their health
care system to ensure that, while respecting the general principles
of the system and preserving its benefits, the renewal process under
way will make the system better and lead to greater public health;
establish priorities for the future and bring about a wider consensus
on the changes that are required.
Following the invitation sent by the federal health minister,Mr. Rochon, Quebec's minister of health and social services, gave
the following reasons, in a letter dated October 14, 1994, to explain
why the Quebec government would not participate.
The mandate of this forum is an encroachment by the federal government in a
field which essentially falls under provincial jurisdiction, and that is unacceptable.
The clearly stated objective of your government, which is to give the forum a
mandate to define future priorities, in the context of health care reform, and to define
the means to that end, is a direct intrusion in provincial governments' affairs. This is
something that cannot be hidden behind the consultative nature you ascribe to the
recommendations that would come out of this forum.
That was the Quebec health minister's response to his federal
counterpart.
Quebec's health minister also pointed out that Quebec had not
waited for the presumed leadership of the federal government to
undertake a reform, adding that important concrete measures had
been taken, that an extensive public hearing process had enabled
Quebecers to state their views and their needs, thus fostering a joint
effort to define priorities and means of action, and that, in recent
years, the federal government had made major cuts in its transfers
to the provinces.
What we have here is yet another measure which demonstrates
the federal government's intention to get involved in the health
sector. Indeed, Bill C-95 includes provisions which clearly give the
health minister a legitimate power to interfere, yet again, in fields
of provincial jurisdiction.
If we look at these clauses, far from acting in good faith by
withdrawing from this area that does not come under its
jurisdiction, the federal government has every opportunity to
gradually take over areas of provincial jurisdiction when it is in its
interest. I am not saying that this is a major bill; it has been
portrayed as harmless and inconsequential, but the reality is far
different.
16152
Subclause 4(1) of Bill C-95 sets out the powers, duties and
functions of the Minister of Health. It proposes that the minister's
powers extend to ``all matters over which Parliament has
jurisdiction relating to the promotion and preservation of the
health of the people of Canada''.
The Department of National Health and Welfare Act contained a
similar provision. Parliament's jurisdiction over public health
could cause confusion. This provision should be more specific.
The following clauses are more subtle. Subclause 4(2) lists the
health minister's powers, duties and functions, including ``the
promotion and preservation of the physical, mental and social
well-being of the people of Canada''.
This provision would give the federal government the authority
and legitimacy to interfere in an area of exclusive provincial
jurisdiction.
Subclause 4(2) then mentions ``the protection of the people of
Canada against risks to health and the spreading of diseases''. This
does not appear in the original act that Bill C-95 would replace.
(1530)
This would allow the federal government to move to protect the
health and safety of the people in the name of national interest and
of the power to ensure peace, order and good government.
Paragraph 4(1)(c) places investigation and research into public
health, including the monitoring of diseases, under federal
jurisdiction.
This provision creates a problem, since clause 12 provides that
``nothing in this act or the regulations authorizes the minister or
any officer or employee of the department to exercise any
jurisdiction or control over any health authority operating under the
laws of any province''. There is obvious confusion here.
How does Health Canada plan to ensure this continuous disease
control monitoring without having access to the necessary
information? According to the Act respecting health services and
social services, health care institutions are health agencies
governed by provincial legislation.
Is that really a problem? Does clause 12 effectively limit federal
intervention in health matters or is it a mere front put up to reassure
the provinces, a line that the federal government will have no
qualms crossing if and when it pleases, as it has done in recent
years?
Clause 4 may therefore be interpreted rather freely and broadly.
There certainly is cause for concern about the real scope of this
clause, which can be interpreted many different ways and ascribed
many intentions. This is how, as usual, the federal government tries
to expand into provincial areas of jurisdiction through a seemingly
simplistic and innocuous project.
But no one is fool enough not to guess what it is up to. Bill C-95
is another fine example of the federal way of doing things: silently,
without making any waves, because it knows full well that no one
agrees with its handling of health care.
Needless to say that, for all those reasons and many more-that
my colleagues will have the opportunity to raise later on-, we
cannot support in any way Bill C-95. Mr. Speaker, before closing, I
would like to table the following amendment to Bill C-95.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Joliette:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word ``That''
and substituting the following: ``this House declines to give second reading to
Bill C-95, An Act to establish the Department of Health and to amend and repeal
certain Acts, because the principle of the Bill does not provide for including in
the Minister's powers, duties and functions, the power to award full and entire
financial compensation to any province wishing to exercise fully its jurisdiction
over health''.
(1535)
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-95 is
really not much more than a bill to change the name of the
Department of Health. On that basis it is surprising that we will
spend so much time debating it. If I asked a high school class how
long they thought it would take to change the name of a
department, they would tell me it would probably take a minute.
I see this debate being used by my colleagues as an opportunity
to talk about health care in a broader sense and I will seize that
opportunity too. This bill is what my House leader said it was a few
moments ago when he said it was a pretty thin soup on the
legislative agenda we have seen lately.
Let me start my comments about health care in general by
making a statement I would like to have emblazoned across the
forehead of my colleagues across the way as coming from the
health critic of the Reform Party. I will say it over and over again
until they finally do recognize and plainly hear what I am saying:
Medicare is our best social program. Medicare is the program I
think we should protect with all our resources.
Let me follow that by saying U.S. style medicare, U.S. style
medicine is absolutely unacceptable to Canadians and to
Reformers. There is no desire anywhere in Canada to move toward
a system like the U.S. has. How many times can I say that? How
many times can I express it? How many times can I emblazon it on
the foreheads of my colleagues?
Our public system which is tax supported, which is universal,
which is comprehensive, which is accessible to all and which is
publicly administered, is truly unparalleled. Medicare is our best
social program. This social program however has some cracks in it.
The cracks must be talked about and addressed. If we simply stand
16153
idly by and let the best social program we have break down, we
have not done what we should be doing as legislators.
I beg my colleagues across the way to stop the rhetoric. I beg
them to stop this nonsense about a U.S. style two tier system. I beg
them instead to listen carefully to the actual proposals I make. I beg
them to actually debate with me those proposals line by line instead
of with buzzwords, instead of with rhetoric, instead of with
platitudes. Please debate the concerns.
Why does our medicare system have cracks? What are the cracks
I see? I see an aging population in Canada. Each one of us knows
that as we age, medical expenses go up. In the last three years of
life, 70 per cent of our health care expenditures are spent.
I see new innovative technology coming along that was never
envisaged when medicare came on the scene. I see organ
transplants, joint replacements, things we never dreamed about
when health care was set up. Some of those things are profoundly
expensive. Some are very difficult to fit into the framework we
have.
(1540)
Finally what are probably driving the cracks, and I wish they
were not, are the funding shortfalls. We are in a position now where
the federal government is spending over $1,200 per person to
service the debt, that is servicing the interest on our debt annually
while we spend $268 per person on medicare.
If nothing else, those three things which are happening in
medicare have produced profound cracks. Ignore them, pay no
attention to them and our most valuable social program will not
just have cracks, it will implode. It will not survive.
If anyone takes from that that I say medicare is finished or done,
I will say it again: Medicare is our most valuable social program. It
needs support. It needs protection. It does not need U.S. style two
tier changes. How many times must I say it?
There are two routes to travel in health care changes. Surely we
know that health care changes must come but there are two routes
to travel as I see it.
One route is to ration the procedures we do. That is avenue
number one which we are on today, the rationing of services. We
can ration by waiting in line. We can wait so long that we scream,
or sadly in some cases, we can wait so long that we die. Rationing
by waiting.
We can cap budgets and say that this is all we can afford.
Anything beyond that point will not be done. We can have 30
operating room days instead of 100 operating room days. We can
close beds. We can actually remove them from the system. It is
being done. We can fire nurses and say to them: ``You cannot do
your nursing any longer. Step outside the system. Maybe you
would be just fine as an accountant''. That is one route and the one
I am afraid we are on today, the rationing of services. I decry that
and say it will not suffice.
The other route we can travel is if our medicare system does not
meet the needs of an individual, they should have the choice to step
beyond the public system and access something else. That is where
I think we should go. Please remember that does not mean tossing
our good public system away. It means our tax supported system
will maintain itself, but if medicare does not meet the needs of an
individual patient, they should be able to step outside. I can only
explain this best by giving some examples.
A little girl by the name of Stephanie, a tiny patient, has adenoid
problems and fluid in her ears. She is in pain. This is not a life
threatening problem but she cannot hear as well as she would like.
She is constantly concerned. She goes in to get her antibiotic and
the specialist tells her parents that Stephanie really needs to have
her adenoids removed and the fluid drained from her ears. Her
parents ask the doctor how soon this can be done. It is an
eight-month wait in Nepean for that procedure today.
(1545)
Stephanie is not in the worst difficulty, but what happens for the
eight months she has to wait? She is on antibiotic every three
weeks, and the antibiotic cost is about $40. There is actually some
extra discomfort for her, so she misses play school. When she
misses play school mom has to stay home from work or have a
babysitter come in. Those things are economic, and I would set
them aside and say that they are okay. But for Stephanie herself, the
pain and disruption is there. Her parents ask what choice they have.
The public medicare system is going to provide her service in eight
months. Is there nothing that can be done? Yes, there is something a
Nepean couple could do today. They could go to Rochester. They
considered very carefully going to Rochester for their sweetheart to
get her adenoids out.
There is another choice. I am sad to say that it does not exist in
Ontario now. The choice is a little clinic in Alberta. This clinic is
run by an ear, nose, and throat surgeon exactly of the same
capability as hers. He got ticked off with the fact that the waiting
list in Alberta was eight months. He said there had to be another
way. There were not enough bed opening times for him to bring
kids into the hospital. This is not a hard procedure. The facilities
will cost him about $30,000, and he can get the operating room
microscope, which is not that difficult to sterilize. He could do it in
his office with an anaesthetist and the equipment for that. He
wondered if there was a demand for this.
Today in Alberta he is doing that. The cost is $125 out of the
patient's pocket. The waiting time is two weeks. Little Stephanie in
pain is given the choice. This is what I want. I want Stephanie's
parents to have the choice. If the public system and the eight-month
wait is okay for Stephanie and okay for them, so be it. If they say
that it is not acceptable to them, I want them desperately to be able
to access that facility. And it should not be in Rochester; it should
be in Ottawa.
16154
If there is anyone in the Chamber who would deny that sweet
little girl that choice, I want them to stand now. I cannot imagine a
Canadian who would do that.
Thin edge of the wedge? Our public system cratering because of
the potential of choice? Find me the country in this world that has a
public system like Canada's and a complementary private clinic
that has caused the public system to crater and I will sit down.
There is no such country.
Let me take the other side of the coin now. My mother, who is
living in Alberta, recently had a cataract operation. She had a
choice. There is a clinic in Alberta that would do her cataract
operation for $1,250 out of pocket, with a very short waiting time
of two weeks. The waiting time in the public system for her was
four months. ``Twelve hundred and fifty bucks, boy, that's a lot of
loot'', says my mom. ``How bad are my eyes? Not so bad at all. I
can still watch TV. I can still read the newspaper. I think I will wait.
I think I can easily wait for four months.'' And she did. Her surgery
was performed trouble free. This was a public system providing for
her needs in the way it should.
(1550)
If there is no demand in Canada for options outside medicare,
there will be no such clinics springing up. Interestingly enough, in
a country I am familiar with, some of the private clinics, these
choice clinics that have sprung up, have now gone bankrupt
because the public system has become so efficient, provided all the
services, and pushed them aside.
Why do Canadians not have more confidence in this most
valuable social program to say that it will crater if some choice
springs up? How is it that this most valuable social program would
not survive if there were choice and if the only choice were to go to
Europe? It makes no sense to me whatever.
I talked about how funding goes down because of debt. What
happens if funding from the government drops so low that there is
not enough in a community?
Tomorrow I am going to my twin riding of Saskatoon to speak to
the law faculty. I have already had the opportunity of being there. I
found out that in Saskatoon the provincial and federal funds have
given them no capital expenditures for the last three years-none.
They said they had some things the people in Saskatoon want, and
they raised through foundations $2 million-from corporations,
individuals, and people who are involved in the health care field
doing projects. They put those funds into capital improvements:
equipment and new technology.
The public will not stand for an inferior product in health. Health
is more important to Canadians than any other thing we have or we
can give them.
I say again that the individuals in this country who will not
debate this issue straight up with Reformers who are willing to talk
openly about the cracks-not the explosions, not the breakdown,
not a crisis, but cracks in our most valuable social program-are
ideologically driven and not driven by care, not driven by health
needs, and not driven by common sense.
I am going to end my discourse today by saying that medicare is
our most valuable social program. The biggest threat to medicare in
Canada is politicians who wrap themselves in some kind of a flag
and will not truly address the issues.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We now move on to the next
stage of the debate on Bill C-95. For the next five hours, members
will have a maximum of 20 minutes to make speeches, and 10
minutes for questions or comments.
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first, I want to congratulate the minister sponsoring that
bill. She has strongly and successfully defended the principles
championed for half a century by the Liberal Party, while
developing Canada's health care system. Over the years, medicare
was threatened many times, sometimes from one quarter,
sometimes from another.
(1555)
True to the tradition upheld by her illustrious predecessors, the
minister has just repelled the most recent attacks on medicare, and
all Canadians are grateful for that.
This Liberal government is proud, and deservedly so, of all the
pioneers who saw to the proper development of medicare.
Successive Liberal governments improved the system, so as to
preserve its soundness and effectiveness. This is why Canada now
enjoys a health care program that is second to none, both from a
technical and a social standpoint. The quality of our health care
remains unsurpassed. Equal access for all is also guaranteed to the
fullest extent possible.
Social development is contingent upon health. A healthy nation
is a productive nation. It can enjoy those things that make life
worth living, it stands a better chance of being happy, and its
people can build a strong nation.
One of the ever present challenges faced by the health
department is to find which policies and programs can best
contribute to the health and well-being of Canadians.
Without taking anything away from Canadian health
professionals, I want to congratulate the Minister of Health and
Health Canada for giving priority to essential programs such as
disease prevention and health promotion.
16155
In the past, preventive medicine meant things like vaccination,
which practically eliminated afflictions like smallpox, diphtheria
and poliomyelitis for previous generations. Today, sophisticated
tests and equipment warn us about dangers and allow Canadians of
all regions to add many years of good health to their lives.
Twenty years ago, a Liberal minister of Health, the hon. Marc
Lalonde, published a working paper entitled A New Perspective on
the Health of Canadians which was to have an impact on health
systems across the world. It was a visionary document for the time.
It is comforting to see that so many aspects of Mr. Lalonde's vision
have been realized thanks to the department whose name we are
discussing today.
Many fundamental elements of the health system we know today
came out of the Lalonde paper. The preamble to the Canada Health
Act which mentions the social, environmental and industrial causes
of diseases was also inspired by that document. The causal factor
model which the National Forum on Health is now studying also
comes from the Lalonde working paper.
According to A New Perspective on the Health of Canadians,
and I quote: ``When the full impact of environment and lifestyle
has been assessed, -there can be no doubt that the traditional view
of equating the level of health in Canada with the availability of
physicians and hospitals is inadequate''. The document predicts
appropriately that, to improve the health of Canadians in the future,
we will have to clean up the environment, reduce risks we expose
ourselves to, and improve our knowledge of human biology.
This is the source of the reasoning in favour of social well-being,
which is at the heart of this new bill, as members will note. This is
the source of the arguments against tobacco and excessive alcohol
consumption, which underlie Health Canada's tobacco demand
reduction strategy, and the activities of the Canadian Centre on
Substance Abuse.
This is the source of the arguments in favour of health research,
which are guiding Health Canada in its laboratory work, and the
Medical Research Council in its operation; the latter does not
report to the department but to Parliament through the health
minister. This is the source of the argument that everyone is
responsible for his or her own health and must keep sufficiently fit
to ensure his or her own well-being. As the members are aware,
responsibility for the promotion of physical fitness was given back
to Health Canada.
(1600)
From now on, it is incumbent upon the health department to
encourage Canadians to stay physically active throughout their
lives because physical activity is essential to good health. Health
Canada helps many organizations make physical activity more
accessible and readily available to all Canadians in general and to
the disabled in particular, because the latter are probably the ones
who need it most and have to overcome the most obstacles in that
regard.
With the reorganization of the health department-the main
reason for introducing Bill C-95-another determining factor
relating to the health of Canadians is being added to departmental
operations. Product safety in now being transferred from the
former Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to the
Department of Health. Product safety does indeed come under the
broader field of health protection. Accidents in the home and on the
job are major causes of death and injury for people between 5 and
35 years of age. Because of such accidents, we have people who
can no longer live a full life, economic losses and an increase in
medical and hospital bills.
A lot of these accidents involve consumer and household
products. Health Canada is responsible for the enforcement of the
Hazardous Products Act. This act deals with the sale, the
advertisement and the importation of certain hazardous products
and ensures that consumers are well informed about the risks
associated with the misuse of other products.
Before I conclude, I want to raise a point we seem to forget when
we talk about what contributes to improve the health and welfare of
Canadians. The provinces are of course responsible for providing
health services to the public, but some health problems know no
provincial boundaries. Their causes are deep-rooted in the social
fabric of our nation.
For Canadians to enjoy good health, their basic needs must be
met. They must have a job and a reasonable income and be able to
care for their families. This is where the federal government plays
an important part. It must help to maintain a viable economic
structure so that these goals can be reached.
The Jobs and Growth government agenda will greatly contribute
to improve the health of Canadians. We can expect positive
economic results from the deficit reduction, which will help to
improve the health of Canadians. We all stand behind Health
Canada in this cause. These are the reasons why I wholeheartedly
support Bill C-95.
[English]
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to
comment on some of the things the hon. member for Macleod had
to say in his speech. I notice the hon. member is not here.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wish to remind the hon.
parliamentary secretary that it is not within the norms of the rules
of the House to make reference to the absence of any member,
16156
particularly when we are all aware of the constraints put on our
time at different periods.
Ms. Fry: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I would like to comment on
the statements of the hon. member for Macleod. With all due
respect to William Shakespeare, methinks the hon. member doth
protest too much in his speech when he continued to repeat over
and over that the Reform Party did not mean to have a U.S. medical
system, that the third party supported medicare.
The hon. member repeated this and repeated this to make a point.
However, with respect, I would submit that rhetoric and repetition
of words mean nothing when the actions following the words are
supporting a two tier medicare system that would definitely
dismantle Canadian medicare as we know it.
The hon. member spoke about waiting lists.
(1605 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I seek some clarification
from the hon. parliamentary secretary.
I recognize that the member for Macleod spoke prior to the last
speaker who was a member of the government side and to whom
the question and comment period is designated. I appreciate
comment can be made about a previous speaker and then, in terms
of relevancy, the member goes back to the intervention of the last
spokesperson, the member for Pierrefonds-Dollard. I ask her to
get to the comments of her colleague, the last speaker on the floor
of the House.
Ms. Fry: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on medicare and
on the way the system is to be restructured. It would deal, as my
hon. colleague said just, with some of the structural changes that
are necessary to move the system into the 21st century.
The cost of medicare and the changing of some of the ways that
the system works, as I said in my speech and as the hon. member
just reiterated, have to do with the fact that there are national
concerns and a national interest in a new national Department of
Health.
Research covers a broad spectrum. There are local areas of
research and local areas of health promotion and prevention that
must come from the provinces because they deal specifically with
issues concerning regional problems, regional environmental
issues, and regional and local differences that need to be addressed.
Across the spectrum there are broader issues concerning the
whole spectrum of health facing all Canadians. It is efficient and
effective for the federal government and for national health to take
these issues into consideration. It is effective in that the data
collection in one place creates a cost efficiency and a base where
everyone can co-ordinate and use the information as they need it,
rather than have duplication of service and duplication of
information gathering in 12 different areas such as would come
about if we allowed each province and each territory to repeat, to
duplicate and to reinvent the wheel. They would deal with the
broader issues of health care, promotion and prevention that cut
across provincial boundary lines and have nothing to do with
specific regional and local interests.
There is a specific role for the Government of Canada in
research, promotion and programs pertaining to low risk babies. It
is common to all Canadians; it is not specific to any one province.
If we are talking about efficiencies and appropriateness of care
and appropriateness of effort, we need to focus on them, and it is
appropriate for the federal government to do so. It is more
appropriate for the federal government to do it than for provinces,
as I said before, to deal with it individually. When the ministers of
health met in the past they all agreed that it was a very real role.
In terms of safety it is much easier as drugs, devices and foods
come into the country for one agency to assess and to deem
whether or not they are safe. Goods and services travel across the
provinces and therefore go to every person as far away as Prince
Edward Island and Vancouver Island. Therefore safety should be
carried across Canada so that there is one level of safety and it is
not spottily done in different areas of the country.
The national interest of health and the need for a national
Department of Health are not intrusive. It is an appropriate way for
the federal government to look after safety, health promotion and
prevention.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I would only like to know if
the hon. member for Pierrefonds-Dollard has any comment to add
to those that were made on his speech.
The hon. member for Pierrefonds-Dollard has the floor.
Mr. Patry: Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary to
the minister of Health. I submit that today's motion is very
important because it is a positive move for health. Prevention will
get a renewed importance and the department of Health will
assume responsibility for certain regulations, like the one on
hazardous products and other similar products, and also for fitness.
(1610)
I personally think that the future of health in Canada is
prevention. We talked a lot about health care, but before things get
there, there is prevention. That is the objective of the bill and I am
proud of it.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is a physician. He listened very carefully
to my colleague in the Reform Party make a very eloquent and, I
might say, one of the best speeches I have heard in the House. He
16157
listened to his recital of the tragic case of Stephanie. The member
must have had many patients who endured terrible pain and
suffering because essential services were not available to them
since the Canada Health Act rationed essential services.
The Minister of Health has often said in the House that we must
provide Canadians with access, access, access to essential health
care services and that we in the Reform Party were espousing ideas
that would somehow limit that access. How is access served better
when we have increasing costs, an aging population and increasing
demand? When demand on our limited resources is actually
increasing, how will we provide individuals with access to
essential health care services?
We want to amend, not destroy, the Canada Health Act to enable
private clinics to exist and to enable private services to be provided
to Canadians. Only private moneys would be exchanged in the
private clinics. Not a single dollar of taxpayers' money would be
spent in the clinics. We would have a system that provides for
greater access for all Canadians regardless of the care than what
they have now.
How will our plan somehow destroy health care in the country
when we will give better access to all Canadians regardless of their
income?
[Translation]
Mr. Patry: Mr. Speaker, what struck me in the speech made by
the member from the Reform Party, before my colleague made his
comments, is that he told the House that the Canadian health care
system is one of the best if not the best in the world and that he did
not want in any way a health care system based on the American
model.
I think that having private clinics, as suggested by my colleague,
would be the beginning of the end of our health care system as we
know it in Canada and the birth of a two tier system, one for the
rich and one for the poor.
I am well aware of cases like the one mentioned by the member
for Macleod, the case of Stephanie. Such cases exist in every riding
in this country, but I think that, at the present time, the provision of
essential services is good. Of course there is room for improvement
in the area of essential services, and these improvements must be
made through prevention. I think that, without prevention, we will
have problems in the future. But prevention is an essential part of
our government's vision of health care, and that is the direction we
are going to take as we move toward the next millenium.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-95, an act to establish the
Department of Health and to amend and repeal certain acts. To
begin with, I feel I must remind my fellow citizens that health is a
provincial jurisdiction.
Pursuant to subsections 92(7) and 92(16) of the Constitutional
Act, 1867, and according to the way the courts have interpreted
these provisions, it is clearly established and acknowledged that
health and social services are exclusively a provincial jurisdiction.
(1615)
Yet, federal interventions in matters of health are numerous and
have been going on for a long time. As a matter of fact, since the
beginning of this century, the federal government has passed the
following acts concerning health: in 1919, the government
established its own health department and gave its first grants: in
1948, the government launched a national health grants program;
in 1957, it enacted the Hospital Insurance Act; in 1966, it enacted
the Medical Care Act, and in 1984, the Canada Health Act which
sets out the federal principles of the Canadian health system.
The Government of Quebec has always condemned the
interventions of the federal government in matters of health. In
1926, the Taschereau government was the first to protest against
federal interference in health issues. Since then, every Quebec
government did likewise.
As the years went by, all this intrusion by the federal government
became increasingly expensive for the taxpayers of Canada and
Quebec. Ottawa was able to be generous since it was paying its
expenses with the provinces' money or with borrowed money. That
is what put us all in debt.
I will remind members that, in World War II, the central
government in Ottawa used the war effort as an excuse to encroach
upon personal and corporation income taxes. Up to then, these
taxes were collected exclusively by provinces. This supposedly
temporary measure is still in effect today.
The federal government clearly gave in to the temptation to
control more and more, without giving back to the provinces the
tax powers they had before the war. It decided instead to grant
subsidies provided programs created by the Canadian government
were implemented.
Such a control of tax revenues allowed the federal government to
constantly centralize operations thereafter, which caused untold
duplication and shameful waste of public funds. Worse still, to stay
in office, several generations of federal politicians distributed gifts
which created a burden of debt for future generations of Quebecers
and Canadians.
At the present time, and despite the fact that it is clearly
operating in a provincial area of jurisdiction, Health Canada looms
large: its operating budget is more than $1 billion in 1995-96, while
transfer payments to the provinces are $7 billion for the same year.
The federal government has never indicated that it intends to
loosen its grip on the Canadian health system. Indeed, during the
1993 election campaign, the Liberal Party of Canada said in its red
book, and I quote: ``The role of the federal government should
include the mobilization of effort to bring together Canada's wealth
of talent and knowledge in the health care field. This is a societal
16158
issue in which every Canadian has an interest. The federal
government must provide the means to ensure that Canadians are
involved and informed, and can understand the issues and the
options''.
For once, the Liberal Party kept its promise. On June 29, despite
the opposition of all the Canadian provinces, the Minister of Health
announced the establishment of the National Forum on Health. The
mandate of this forum was, first, to develop a vision of what the
Canadian health system would be in the 21st century; second, to
promote dialogue among Canadians and Canada about the health
system; and third, to define the priorities for the future.
(1620)
Jean Rochon, the Quebec minister of health and social services,
wrote to the federal health minister on October 14, 1994, to remind
her of this:
The mandate of this forum is an encroachment by the federal government in a
field which essentially falls under provincial jurisdiction, and that is
unacceptable. The clearly stated objective of your government, which is to give
the forum a mandate to define future priorities, in the context of health care
reform, and to define the means to that end, is a direct intrusion in provincial
governments' affairs. This is something that cannot be hidden behind the
consultative nature you ascribe to the recommendations that would come out of
this forum.
Mr. Rochon further wrote that Quebec had not waited for federal
leadership to adapt its health care system to today's needs and that
he had already held major consultations with Quebec population.
The Quebec minister of health and social services reminded the
federal minister that the cuts made in transfer payments to
provinces with regard to health were not the best action a
government could take to preserve and promote a health care
system in Canada.
Those major cuts are a threat to the very principles advocated in
the federal health act.
At the same time as the federal government was seeking to
encroach on a provincial area of jurisdiction, it was unilaterally and
drastically reducing its funding for health programs in the
provinces of Canada.
In the spring of 1995, the National Council of Welfare, an
organization whose role is to advise the health minister, warned her
against such action and said: ``It would be extremely hypocritical
to reduce contributions to the provinces while raising the standards
required of them''.
But that is exactly what the government is doing right now. We
should recall that when the finance department created the
so-called EPF program providing transfers to provinces for
welfare, health and post-secondary education, it was agreed that
transfer payments would be indexed to the rate of growth of the
Canadian economy.
Since 1986, however, the federal government has been cutting
back constantly on those payments to reduce its deficit. It has been
doing so unilaterally, without taking into consideration the
provinces' capacity to pay. Between 1982 and 1995, it saved $8
billion on medicare alone, at the expense of Quebecers. Because of
this shortfall, Quebec had to raise taxes to offset the federal
withdrawal from funding.
A study by the C.D. Howe Institute has shown that, while
spending for established programs financing remained stable
between 1988 and 1992, other federal program spending rose by
25.5 per cent. In other words, the federal government told the
provinces they should tighten their belts while it went on spending
freely and increasing its deficit.
The lack of stability in the federal contribution to medicare is a
serious problem. Payments are frozen, reduced, or deindexed at the
whim of the finance minister and his financing requirements. There
is no longer an agreed upon financing formula. The amounts are set
unilaterally and arbitrarily by the federal government, irrespective
of the real costs of the provincial programs.
This constant variation in funding, always downward, has
become a nightmare for everyone involved in the health field.
What is more serious is that the Minister of Finance appears
oblivious to the fact that he is playing not only with columns of
figures but with the health of the men and women of Quebec and of
Canada.
(1625)
Last February, in his last budget, the Minister of Finance chose
to once again reduce transfers to the provinces for health. As a
result, Quebec will have to absorb a shortfall of $650 million for
health and social services alone, in 1996-97, and 1.9 billion in
1997-98. One of the benefits of federalism, no doubt.
In the spring of 1995, the National Council of Welfare made the
following comment on the planned cuts to funding Canada's health
programs: ``The projects announced in this budget-would have
the probable consequence of bringing about the dismantling of a
national system-of social services it took us a generation to build
up''.
The Minister of Health for British Columbia had the following to
say about these cuts:
[English]
``Last February's budget which cut transfers to provinces for
health-has forced provinces to look at unpalatable cuts that
threaten medicare''.
16159
[Translation]
If the Canadian health system were really so dear to the heart of
the Minister of Health for Canada, she would have followed the
lead of her colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and opposed her
government's last budget, which attacked social programs. She
would have stood up at the cabinet meetings where these decisions
were made, and would have held up against the Minister of
Finance's figures the pressing needs of the Canadian people for
quality health care. The Minister of Health could have suggested
that the government seek its resources from the rich, with their
numerous tax shelters, starting with the list of the generous
bankrollers of the Liberal Party, and not forgetting the Minister of
Finance's companies.
But that is not what she is doing. Today, she introduced a bill that
perpetuates the federal government's control of health care, an area
over which the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction. Paragraph
2(a) and paragraph 2(b) of clause 4 could easily be used by the
federal government to interfere even more with the administration
of health care in Canada.
The bill before the House today is hypocritical to the point that
in clause 12 we read, and I quote:
Nothing in this Act or the regulations authorizes the Minister or any officer or
employee of the Department to exercise any jurisdiction or control over any
health authority operating under the laws of any province.
When as a result of its budget cuts, the federal government
drastically reduces funding for health care in the provinces, it
affects the way authorities operating under the laws of a province
function by reducing their capacity to maintain a level of services
commensurate with the needs of the citizens of Quebec and
Canada.
The Bloc Quebecois condemns this bill because it sanctions
federal encroachment on provincial jurisdictions. Quebec has its
priorities in the health care sector and should have the right to
manage those priorities, in accordance with the present
Constitution. This bill does not mention providing adequate and
stable funding for health care. The minister has abdicated her
responsibility in this respect and bowed to the imperatives of the
Minister of Finance.
This bill constitutes an attack on the provinces while failing to
deal with any of the pressing problems of the health care sector, so
much so that even the most ardent federalists have decided to fight
the initiatives of the Minister of Health.
The Ontario Health Minister, Conservative Jim Wilson, stated on
September 19 that it was necessary to fight the federal
government's insistence on dictating to the provinces its
interpretation of the principles that should be the foundation of the
health care system, and I quote:
[English]
``The federal government should be fought on principle for
dictating its interpretation of medicare to the provinces''.
[Translation]
That same day, Ralph Klein, the Conservative Premier of
Alberta, also condemned the federal government's lack of
flexibility, and I quote:
[English]
``Marleau-does not send a good signal to Quebec. It says there
is no flexibility within the Confederation''.
[Translation]
In a joint press release after a meeting of Health ministers, the
provinces declared that the federal government's insistence on
making unilateral decisions on health care funding, on interpreting
standards or setting arbitrary deadlines for consultations was not
helpful at all.
(1630)
Since the federal government is unable to provide adequate
safeguards for the health of Quebecers and Canadians, since
continuing cuts are the main threat to the health of Quebecers and
Canadians, the federal government should withdraw from the
health care sector and transfer to the provinces the fiscal resources
that would enable them to do the federal government's job far more
successfully.
[English]
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I did enjoy the hon. member's comments. I wish I could
speak fluently enough in the beautiful French language, but I must
speak in English. I am not good enough yet to carry on detailed
conversations in French.
In health care, the needs of the people of Quebec are the same as
those of the people in my province of Nova Scotia. All of the
provinces have serious deficit situations and we have had to begin
dealing with deficit reduction. I remind the hon. member that the
province of Quebec has not attempted to reduce its deficit as the
other provinces have done. This is a major concern in dealing with
health care.
Another variant which occurs in the health care system is that
some provinces give credence to many health care needs. For
example, some of the provinces consider cosmetic surgery part of
the health care program. Through the years in Nova Scotia we have
had more than basic coverage in programs such as dental care for
children, an excellent program covering dental care up to the age of
16.
What has happened under the broad umbrella of health care is
the provinces have added on things encompassing more than basic
health care. They cannot afford them. We have heard recently that
16160
Quebec must close some 25 hospitals. This is not due to the federal
government's cutbacks. This is due to the overspending and the
additional encompassing programs which have come under health
care.
What the federal government wants, and I ask the hon. member
if this is not her desire too, is to preserve the health care programs
for all Canadians as to basic needs, so that this is a very unifying
factor for this country. Without the strong federalist approach to the
health care needs, we will miss out.
[Translation]
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to remind my colleague of a few things. First of all, I
thank her for her question and comments. I wish to remind her that,
between 1988 and 1992, established programs financing remained
stagnant. Meanwhile, the federal government wasted money on
other programs, resulting in a 25.5 per cent cost increase.
So when they tell me that we must cut because of the deficit, I
say we must start by cutting waste in defence spending, among
other things.
Mr. Milliken: Ah, yes. The same old tune.
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Funding for health
care programs remained stagnant from 1988 to 1992.
Mr. Milliken: You must calm down.
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Let me speak, you,
the hon. member across the way.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I simply wish to
remind my colleagues from both sides of the House that they must
always address their comments to the Chair. I think that members
would even then be able to express themselves as forcefully as they
need to. They must, however, always remember to address their
comments to the Chair.
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr. Speaker, fair
enough, thank you for reminding me. Before saying what she said
about Quebec, my colleague should get her facts straight. Quebec
has made major changes to its health program.
(1635)
Quebec may even have lost the referendum. One of the reasons
why we lost the referendum may be the Rochon reform. So we
made major changes in the area of health. Of course, Quebec
provides health services that are not available in other provinces.
For example, women can have access to abortion if they want to;
other provinces do not offer this service. We have moved toward
ambulatory care and reduced hospitalization time considerably. We
have closed hospitals. We have modified the functions performed
and services provided by some hospitals; some day hospitals now
provide long term care and inpatient services.
So before looking at what is happening in the neighbour's
backyard, I would invite the hon. member to look at her own
province where, on the eve of the referendum, the Minister of
Finance said he would no longer be able to control his finances if
Quebec separated from Canada.
[English]
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want first to make a few comments
on the hon. member's speech and then ask her a question.
The hon. member gave us a wonderful history of what has
happened since 1919. At the end of that history, the hon. member
mentioned it culminated in what we now know as Canadian
medicare, which I hasten to say was enacted by a Liberal prime
minister.
That medicare we know benefits all Canadians, including
Quebecers. It is also the envy of the world. Every single survey and
study that has been done has shown that 89 per cent of Canadians in
every province, including the province of Quebec, believe it is
something they would like to keep. It is important to them as
Canadians. It is the most important thing we can possess as a
country. In fact medicare and this history lesson led to something
which is very positive and which Canadians still hold very dearly.
I also want to speak about the member's comment on the
encroachment of the national health forum on provincial
jurisdictions.
The forum is made up of members from every province,
including the province of Quebec. The forum is made up of
members of the public. It is not made up of people from
government.
Perhaps the member could tell me whether she believes that the
Canadian government does not have the right to speak to Canadian
people in every province, which is what the forum is doing. The
forum is not changing anything; the forum is having a dialogue
with ordinary Canadians. Can the Canadian government not speak
with ordinary Canadians? Something we promised in our red book
was the ability to speak and to get input from Canadians, from real
people and not just from government.
The hon. member speaks of cuts and interference in provincial
jurisdictions. Health Canada's authority with regard to the Canada
Health Act and with regard to medicare is a contractual one. The
Canadian government signs a contract with provinces to receive
money from the federal government. In turn, those provinces agree
to the conditions based on getting that money.
The provinces do not have to accept any conditions, but then
they cannot also accept the money because on a contract both sides
16161
have an agreement. One side agrees to give money and the other
side agrees to abide by certain terms. That is clearly what provinces
do when they sign the contract.
Finally, the hon. member spoke of how cuts are affecting the
provincial government's ability to provide services in Quebec. The
Quebec government has a budget of $13.4 billion for health for
1995-96. That government made a cut of $565 million to its health
care budget well before the federal government presented its cuts
for 1996-97 within the Canada health transfers.
I ask the hon. member, why did her province's government make
those cuts if it really needed money in the system? Why were there
$565 million in cuts when the hon. member says that Quebec's
health care system needs more money?
(1640)
[Translation]
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Still, Mr. Speaker,
it is a sad day when you hear the kind of things we are hearing in
this House. Attempts were made to convince the people of Quebec
that there are no benefits to belonging to the Canadian
confederation and, every day since we reconvened, evidence of a
total lack of understanding of what is going on in this country has
been building up. People are blind. Politicians are blind.
We are criticized, on the one hand, for not making cuts, and on
the other hand, for making cuts too soon. I think that our
government acted responsibly. An overhaul was required in the
health care system, because funding cuts are expected. Shortfalls of
$650 million one year and $1.9 billion the next year add up to
nearly $2.5 billion over two years. It seems to me that the thing to
do for a responsible government is to plan ahead. But where I find
fault with this government across the way is when it decides to stop
paying but wants to keep controlling everything anyway.
When I was young and lived at home, I lived by the rules my
father had set because he was providing me with room and board.
But when I moved into my own apartment and had my own money,
I lived by my own rules.
When you stop paying, you lose the right to tell others what to do
with their money. You have no right stealing a jurisdiction away
from others and telling them: ``Its is yours, but we can do what we
want with it.'' So little sensitivity and understanding and so much
arrogance, contempt and affront coming from you, Sir, is
unacceptable, under the present circumstances. We have had it.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before proceeding with the
debate on Bill C-95 I would simply ask colleagues in the House on
both sides that we continue this debate in a respectful fashion. We
had all hoped and set out to do that with great commitment when
we first came to this House following the last federal election
which brought us here together to this House of Commons in this
35th Parliament.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am going to support Bill C-95. The Department of
Health is very important. It is the department of drug certification,
the department of product safety and the department of health act
enforcement. It is the department of defence against disease, that
common enemy of all Canadians.
From time to time hon. opposition members have criticized the
Department of Health. They say it spends too much money. I say it
is money wisely spent and not at all more than its responsibilities
require. Consider the array of vital activity the Department of
Health supports under its mission to help the people of Canada
maintain and improve their health.
(1645 )
Health Canada plays a major role in protecting the health of
Canadians. This House has been preoccupied with paring back for
some time, but hon. members know very well that certain demands
on the system will not go away simply because budgets are cut.
Health threats allow no fiscal restraint. It is a challenge of the
Department of Health to maintain an infrastructure that guarantees
quality health care to Canadians in good times as well as in bad.
More than 2,000 people work in the department to protect the
health of Canadians by regulating goods and services mostly under
the Food and Drugs Act, but also under the air and water
legislation.
Health Canada has an environmental responsibility to manage
chemical and radiological hazards. Each year a way must be found
and the resources must be provided to review 1,000 new medical
devices before they reach the market.
Health Canada prevents or regulates the sale and advertising of
dangerous products and warns consumers about those in
circulation. With everything else on their minds, people do not
want to be worried about those details in their daily lives. The
department helps take that worry away.
Product safety is part of the larger picture in maintaining health.
Accidents in the home and at work are a major cause of death and
disability between the ages of 5 and 35, causing not only the loss of
enjoyment of life but economic loss and heavy medical and
hospital expenses.
Each year thousands of field inspections, almost 3,000 last year,
are carried out among food and drug establishments. Each
inspection leads to an average of five analyses of food, drug and
medical devices, some 14,000 last year. The department is
responsible for
16162
the nutritional quality of food, for making sure that additives,
agricultural chemicals and processing methods are safe.
In 1994 more than 77,000 tests of suspected illicit drugs were
carried out. Health Canada administers the Narcotic Control Act. It
also works to ensure that drug products which may be effective
when used one way do not pose unacceptable risks in another way.
All pharmaceuticals in use in Canada must be certified by the
department. A revised drug certification renewal process is
designed to improve protection of consumers and to increase their
access to important new drugs.
Over the past year, investigations were conducted into 20
outbreaks of disease including TB, cholera, hepatitis B, hanta virus
and the hamburger disease. We do not know enough yet about some
emerging infections to be able to prevent or control them. Radio,
television and the press report to Canadians every day on the gaps
in our ability to track threats such as drug resistant bacteria and
those surfacing viruses. The public is more knowledgeable than
ever in history.
Health intelligence is shorthand for pooling awareness,
information and understanding of health problems and approaches
among various jurisdictions and health sector partners.
(1650 )
The Department of Health's laboratory centre for disease control
is now strengthening Canada's health intelligence network. This
initiative, which will include participation in a new global network
designed to detect emerging diseases, is endorsed by the provincial
governments. The provinces know that national leadership in this
area is essential if we are to make the most cost effective choices
among all available health technologies and options.
The path to the government's objective of getting more value for
every dollar spent on health is paved by preventing illness before it
starts and by promoting healthy living. Each dollar that goes to
prevent ill health saves tens of hundreds of thousands of dollars in
treatment costs.
Health intelligence is one of the tools used within the department
to address perplexing and persistent issues, such as mental health,
cancer, AIDS, family violence, heart and lung disease, and prenatal
deprivation. The department supports research to determine what
will enhance health. It then promotes these activities by education
and awareness campaigns and by developing infrastructure and
programs.
For instance, the department is at the penetrating point of a
network of government programs for children. The clear
understanding is that the future of children depends on critical
input during the first year of life.
The government as a whole directs more than $15 billion
annually to Canadian children and their families to support health
and development. Health Canada provides a wide range of
programs for children at risk of abuse or injury, social or physical
diseases. This year its child development initiative includes a
ground breaking childhood cancer information system and
strategies to address children's mental health.
Hon. members have heard of the department's prenatal nutrition
program to reduce the tragedy of infant disability due to poorly
nourished mothers. This is a comprehensive effort that includes
diet supplements as well as counselling in nutrition and lifestyle
issues such as smoking, substance abuse, stress and family
violence.
As we come to pass from one century to the next, we might
reflect that when our great grandparents witnessed the last such
passage, their average lifespan and that of their friends was many
years less than ours. As recently as the 1930s the average lifespan
of a Canadian male at birth was only 60 years. A baby boy born
today can expect to live at least 25 per cent longer, the equivalent of
an extra week per month, or 13 weeks annually, or 15 years of extra
life. A female baby's longevity has been extended by 18 years.
Better nutrition, better housing, better working conditions, and
better sanitation have been major contributing factors to our better
health and longer lives. But also there are marvels of human
ingenuity applied to the field of health. The cholera and typhus that
assailed our ancestors was controlled. Our children were defended
against smallpox, diptheria and polio by simple vaccination. We
learned to deal pre-emptively with the ravages of syphilis and
tuberculosis. In each we triumphed. We spared thousands of lives
and prevented a huge loss to the productive capability of this
nation. Billions of dollars have been saved in the cost of care.
(1655)
The federal government spends many millions of dollars each
year on health research and makes it available to all provinces, all
hospitals and all doctors throughout Canada. The outcome of this
research saves the lives of Canadians.
The unfortunate reality is that illness still exists. Diseases afflict
us unpredictably and haphazardly. Most illnesses, especially the
major ones, are blind accidents. We are only able to deal with them
after they have made an appearance. We must use the methods of
medical care for this.
In Canada fortunately, disease is not made twice tragic by having
a sick person bear the cost of the treatment. Expenses are paid in
full by Canada's comprehensive and universal medical insurance
programs which pay family physician and specialist fees as well as
the charges for tests, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, surgery and
16163
hospitalization, any or all that are required. This system is a source
of deep national pride.
Patients in some provinces were asked to pay the difference
between what health care providers were charging and what their
provincial health plan would pay. This practice became known as
user charges. As well, some doctors were billing patients over and
above the provincially approved rates. Extra billing and user fees
were a serious threat to our national medicare system.
To stop this erosion the Liberal government of the day instituted
the Canada Health Act in 1984. This established in law the five
principles on which the system remains supported. Everyone is
covered for all medical necessities. Access to care is on an equal
basis. Coverage is portable among provinces. Administration and
payments are handled by the public sector. It is this act that still
governs the health care system that has evolved in Canada and
which is the best health care system in the world.
It is the Department of Health that administers and enforces this
act, this cornerstone of Canadian cohesion. It is this bill, Bill C-95,
that positions the department even more surely to discharge its
responsibilities so essential to our national interest. It is therefore
my intention to vote for its passage which I trust will be swift.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to the member's speech. At one point in his
speech he made the comment that sickness in Canada is not made
tragic because the system pays for everything. I would like to tell a
short story and ask a question of the member about that very aspect.
In 1989 a man I know noticed some blood in his stool so he went
along to the doctor. The doctor said it looked pretty serious and that
he would have to book the man in to see a specialist. It was going to
take six weeks to see the specialist in Vancouver. That is not
uncommon. Anybody who has been to a doctor and has had to go to
a specialist knows that sort of waiting list is common in Canada.
The man said to the doctor: ``I am not prepared to wait six weeks
for something that could be life or death. Give me the name of
someone I can see in the United States because when it comes to
life and death, I am prepared to pay''.
The doctor said he would see what strings he could pull. The
doctor pulled some strings and voilà, in two days the man suddenly
received attention. It was not because it was fair that he jumped to
the front of the line but because he made a lot of noise about it. He
visits the specialist and the specialist says: ``You really need an
MRI to determine exactly the extent of the problem. It is going to
take 10 weeks to get you an MRI at St. Paul's Hospital in
Vancouver because there is not enough money to run it. It can only
do five scans a day and only one of those is for anything other than
cranial scans''. If you have a cat that is sick you can take it to the
MRI after hours and it can be scanned. You can pay for your cat to
be scanned but you cannot pay.
(1700)
This person said: ``I'm not prepared to wait 10 weeks for an
MRI. Give me the name of a place in the United States''. The
doctor said: ``Okay, if you go down to Bellingham, St. Joseph's
Hospital can do it for you. Let me call and make the
arrangements''. He called up and the man was offered an
appointment the very next day, not 10 weeks, the very next day.
The man decided it was a little inconvenient the next day so went
two days later. He was treated like a client, not a number. He was
shown into the hospital. He was not even asked whether he could
pay or not.
I know this is the truth because it was me. The man was not even
asked if he could pay. He was invited into the hospital. He had his
test. He had the MRI. The doctor said to him: ``If you will have
lunch and a cup of coffee, in two hours come back and we will have
the report written up and all the pictures for you''.
I had my entire tests done and was back in Vancouver in four
hours with the results that would have taken 10 weeks.
The worse thing about that whole exercise was when everything
had been done, and I had been given the package, they said: ``How
are you going to pay for this?'' I had to pay $1,000 U.S. to St.
Joseph's Hospital in Bellingham when I would rather have paid it
to St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver.
What sort of a stupid system is this? This is not rich and poor. It
is life and death.
When the member says that the Canadian system does not make
sickness tragic he should think a bit more about real cases. It is
real. Luckily I had the choice to go across the border and pay
$1,000 U.S. to save my life. The sick, despicable system that the
government continues to support would have resulted in my death
because of the waiting lists and no choice.
All that the Reform Party wants in the health care system is
choice. That is all it is. It is not to deprive anybody of anything. If I
had been able to spend that $1,000 at St. Paul's Hospital in
Vancouver I would have subsidized an MRI for somebody else who
could not afford to pay. That is the principle.
That is why the eye clinics in Alberta work so well. That is why
the waiting lists are down. The people who have a little extra
money and are prepared to go some other place reduce the waiting
lists.
I would like to hear the member's comments about that and why
he would support a system that would have resulted in my death.
16164
Mr. Culbert: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to attempt to reply
to the hon. member's statement and possibly a question.
He called the greatest health care system in the world, that is
admired by citizens in every country throughout the world, a stupid
system. Yet it is based on not how many dollars you have got in
your pocket, but on need.
The hon. member did not go on. I see him moving out now-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I would like to
remind colleagues that we are not to refer, reflect or certainly not
mention the absence of any member in the Chamber at any time.
Mr. Culbert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for reminding me of that.
It is a usual courtesy that when one asks a question to wait around
and hear the answer.
I am amazed that the hon. member would prefer the system of
our good friends in the United States where there are literally
millions of people who have no health care. We have all heard the
horror stories of their losing a lifetime of savings, losing their
homes as a result of a health problem some time during their lives.
I am sure the hon. member was not suggesting that we should look
at that type of system for Canada.
The principles that were put in place were put there to protect the
health care of all Canadians so that all Canadians would be treated
equal.
I would suggest to the hon. member that if his particular
situation, to which he referred, was an emergency situation, most
hospitals that I have been involved with over the years-and I
served on a hospital board for some 15 years-always set aside
time both in their outpatients, in their emergency rooms and in their
OR for emergency situations. They also schedule those selective
procedures that have to be done. Some may be in day surgery, some
may be a little more serious and take more time.
The world is not perfect in each and every hospital, but in the
particular situation the hon. member describes that certainly his
doctor-and I am not being critical of his doctor-should have
interceded on his behalf if indeed it were an emergency situation
and obtained the OR time or the day surgery time and made sure
that it was scheduled. I think there was some responsibility there.
(1705 )
We have the greatest health care system in the world. We see this
on a daily basis. However, there is always room for improvement,
which is exactly what we are doing. We are trying to work with the
provinces to avoid those areas of duplication and to assist in putting
together a better program.
The provincial health care ministers are trying to develop a
better program that will continue to evolve and improve in order to
make it even better than it is today. I suggest that it takes all of the
health care practitioners working to improve the program and
maintain those principles that have made the health care program
in Canada envied throughout the world.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We have approximately two
minutes left in the question and comment period. I would ask the
hon. member for his co-operation that I might also give the
member for Carleton-Charlotte equal time to respond.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, I will give him
time to respond. I thank him for giving me the opportunity to say
that no, I do not support a United States style health care system.
Neither does anyone else in the Reform Party.
Reform members have made it very clear that we support
medicare plus which is a lot different. Sweden uses a similar
system. I can also give an example from New Zealand of my
82-year old mother who needed a cataract operation. The waiting
list in the public system was years. If you are 82 and you have to
wait six years, then what? Since there is a choice down there she
paid a couple of thousand dollars to have one of her eyes done. So
many seniors did the same thing that the waiting list came down.
When she went for her second operation she had it done within the
public system and it only took two weeks. The waiting list vanished
within a very short period of time.
We do not support a U.S. system. We support choice in addition
to the present medicare, common sense.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I thank the hon. member for
his co-operation. I would ask the same from the hon. member for
Carleton-Charlotte.
Mr. Culbert: Mr. Speaker, indeed I will respect your wishes. I
am pleased to hear that the hon. member and his colleagues support
the health care system we have in Canada. I cannot speak at great
length about the system that might be in place in New Zealand to
which I believe he referred. I do not have any expertise in that area
so I will not refer to that part.
However, I do know, and I have seen it personally over many
years, of the benefits of the medicare system in our country. Yes,
we can improve it. Yes, we should continue to work toward
improving it and making it even better. It is a system that has been
admired throughout the world and we should continue to promote
and protect it for years to come.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, before I begin I would like to commend my hon. colleague
from North Vancouver because he laid bare in the House a personal
health care matter. I say to the people across the way who have
16165
been heckling him that if he had not gone down to the United States
he would be dead today. It is a very real example of how our health
care system failed him as it fails other Canadians from coast to
coast. The reason why he was able to have a life saving operation in
the United States was because he had the money. That is what the
government is preserving today. It is preserving a system that
enables the rich to get better health care than the poor.
(1710)
Today we are dealing with Bill C-95, an act to establish the
Department of Health. It is a housekeeping bill, a bill of
wordsmithing, a bill that changes words, a bill that does not have
anything to do with devolution of powers, nothing to do with
personnel changes, nothing to do with any vision to save health
care in this country; health care I might add that is in critical
condition and needs emergency help.
It is profoundly tragic that we have this bill in front of us. In the
last two years the Minister of Health has yet to put a single piece of
legislation on the table to amend and improve health care for
Canadians, Bill C-7 notwithstanding, which did not come from her
department but came from another source.
The minister keeps on saying that we do not have a problem, that
we are moving toward reorganization. She claims that Reform
members are in favour of a system that prevents access for the
poor. The problem is access. Canadians are not getting access to
essential health care services from coast to coast. That is the
problem. The government is defending a health care system that is
crumbling from within.
I will give a little background. When the Canada Health Act was
written in 1984, the people who wrote it with very noble intentions
simply could not envision the increasing costs, the increasing
demands and the changing demographics of an aging population.
That was not envisioned. Today we are using a health act organized
over a decade ago to deal with problems that did not exist then.
Therefore we see the failure that the Canada Health Act has in
trying to address the problems that we have today.
If we continue to pursue the course we are on now we will not
have a health care system in this country. We will only see people
suffering to varying degrees. Those who will suffer the most are
those who are the poorest. I will give an example.
Operating rooms are closing across the country. They are closing
because hospitals have to save costs. However, waiting lists are
increasing. In the hospital in British Columbia where I worked
patients decided to have their own blood transfused and banked for
operations in case they needed it. It cost the patient $125. The
Minister of Health in British Columbia, Mr. Ramsey said: ``No,
you can't do that because it contravenes the Canada Health Act''.
One month later we had an acute blood shortage in British
Columbia.
I had patients with fractured hips, bleeding to death, with low
haemoglobins and no blood was available. If the province had
allowed the autologous blood transfusions we would not have had
that problem. Is that access? I hardly think so.
In Victoria the wait for radiation therapy for prostate cancer is 16
months. What happens? Patients are sent down to Washington state
where an entire industry has grown to serve Canadians. Is that
Canadian access?
People with carpal disorder in the wrists have to wait six months
before they have surgery. They are off work six months. This
surgery could be done in a private clinic within two weeks. Is that
access?
Imagine one of your grandparents needs a hip transplant,Mr. Speaker, and is in severe pain. If they live in British Columbia,
40 per cent will wait over 13 months to get that hip replaced and all
of that time they are in pain. Is that access? Not at all.
The health care system is falling apart. To get around this, those
who are rich go down to the United States for their health care
needs. The politicians in this government say that the Canada
Health Act is sacrosanct. They say: ``We the government are
defenders of the health care for all Canadians because we want to
ensure that they have access, because we don't want those terrible
Reformers amending the Canada Health Act and having an
American style system that enables only the rich to have access
while the poor suffer''. That is the complete opposite to what we
have.
(1715)
My colleagues and I never got involved in this matter to destroy
health care. We saw the suffering occurring in emergency rooms in
hospitals across the country. We got involved to save health care.
We recognize there is a problem. We do not want to destroy health
care. We got involved to amend the Canada Health Act to ensure
that all Canadians, regardless of income, have their health care
services performed in a timely fashion. My colleagues and I have
given examples to indicate that is simply not occurring.
We have proposed a system that would amend the Canada Health
Act to allow for private clinics. Basically people could pay money
to a private clinic for health care services. Not a single penny of the
taxpayers' money would go into the system. Is it an unequal
system? Yes, it is. However, is it not better to have an unequal
system with better access for all people than the relatively similar
access we have today that provides for declining access for all
Canadians. In the present system the rich can go to the United
States for their health care services while those in Canada suffer
and die.
In Toronto, where I trained, the waiting list for coronary artery
bypass grafting is seven months. People are dying waiting for
bypass surgery. I know a similar example happened in 1986 when I
was finishing my training in British Columbia where men and
16166
women in their fifties were dying waiting for bypass surgery in
Vancouver. That is not access.
We have declining funds and increasing demands, but caught in
the middle is the most important element of all, the patients who
are sick, scared and worried. Their families are worried and scared.
At a time of their greatest need our health care system may fail
them. That is not what we want. That is not what Canadians want.
That is not what the government wants. That is certainly not what
the Reform Party wants.
I implore the Minister of Health and the government to stop the
political rhetoric. Let us move away from political postering. Let
us work together to build a new Canada Health Act that enables all
Canadians from coast to coast to obtain their health care services in
a timely fashion. We want to protect medicare, not destroy it.
We cannot sacrifice, as my hon. colleague from Macleod said,
the most important social program we have today, the health care
system. We simply cannot let that program, which is a defining
characteristic of Canada, disappear. We must preserve it because it
is the most valuable thing each and every one of us have as
individuals.
As an aside I ask the hon. minister to look at some interesting
work being done by one of the greatest minds in the country, Dr.
Fraser Mustard. In Toronto he looked at the determinants of health
care. He has a new vision with respect to health care. The
determinants of health care are somewhat different from what we
have seen in the past. A investment in the early development of
children will pay Canadian society in many aspects in the long run.
I implore the minister to look at the work this man has done
because it is ground breaking and something we can incorporate
federally and provincially into the health care programs that exist
today.
The government also needs a fiscal plan. As we unfortunately
saw about six weeks ago, the IMF downgraded us by 50 per cent,
saying very clearly to the Minister of Finance that if we do not get a
plan to decrease the debt Canada would be in very serious and dire
straits. We can read into it that our social programs will be in dire
straits. Nobody in the House wants to see that. We want to preserve
them in a financially sustainable fashion. Health care will suffer the
same blows as all other social programs. Unfortunately sick people
are the ones who will suffer.
(1720)
I implore the hon. Minister of Health to speak to the Minister of
Finance and other cabinet ministers to look at our zero in three plan
and utilize aspects of it to put our fiscal house in order.
One of my colleagues said today that rather than amending the
Canada Health Act we need to look to preventive measures. That is
all well and true. However, will prevention lower taxes on tobacco?
Is prevention cutting the tobacco reduction strategy by 50 per cent?
Is prevention putting legislation programs and plans in place that
are actually increasing tobacco consumption, especially among the
youth, by 10 per cent or 15 per cent.
Mr. Thompson: Liberal prevention.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): That is right. The
government is talking prevention out of one side of its mouth. On
the other hand it is causing hundreds of thousands of youths to take
up tobacco smoking and will cause between 40,000 and 200,000
premature deaths over the next 20 or 30 years. That is not
prevention.
If the government had enacted sensible solutions with respect to
tobacco, we could accept it and work with it. I cannot accept
talking about prevention on the one hand as a solution to health
care problems, while on the other hand lowering tobacco taxes and
decreasing the tobacco reduction strategy. That simply does not
make sense.
I implore the government to work with us to amend the Canada
Health Act so that medicare can provide essential services to
Canadians from coast to coast. It must also realize that we have a
problem. Pedantic statements about preventive health care, saying
that somehow we will build greater efficiencies into the system and
quoting laparoscopic surgery as the panacea for health care cost
control will not work. It will take more radical, thoughtful,
sensitive changes for all Canadians to have their health care needs
met.
It disturbs me greatly that members of the House across the way
accuse us of wanting an American style health care system. They
accuse us of saying that what is in our pockets when we need health
care services is what matters. We deplore that. It is anathema to us
and we will fight against those types of attitudes every way we can.
In my estimation as a physician we are the only party in the House
putting forward a plan to save not only health care but all our social
programs.
If we can put aside the political rhetoric and work together to
build strong and sustainable health care and social programs, we
can build a better country for all Canadians. We are building the
country for Canadians from coast to coast. We are particularly
preserving health care programs for those most in need.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
been waiting here all day; there is nothing closer to my heart than
work and health care.
I was fortunate at 12.30 today to listen to the great American
fighter, Ralph Nader, talk about health care to the nurses
association. He said that in the United States of America some
80,000 people died in hospital due to malpractice. That is more
people
16167
than those killed by accidents and those killed by homicides. His
contention was that it was malpractice and that some doctors in
their system were actually operating on Americans who had no
disease at all.
(1725)
We hear a lot about systems in the world. Mr. Nader said, and I
think the parliamentary secretary from Vancouver Centre said it as
well, that our system rates between one and three in the world.
There is no question about that. Mr. Nader also mentioned that
some 38 million Americans do not have any health care. He said
the longest waiting line in the world is for those with no health care
at all.
Our friends opposite talk about having a two tier system. I want
to cover that point. We have a $72 billion pot of money. What
happens if we start to shift the money over? Profit will motivate
many people such as insurance companies. Most doctors are very
good. I would not say anything against them because many of my
friends are doctors. They follow the Hippocratic oath. They are
well versed, Christian and want to help people. However, there is
the occasional doctor who looks at the balance sheet.
I got a pile of books from a friend in Los Angeles on their
medicare system. They talk about waiting lines as if there is a
panacea in the United States. There are many scam artists in the
United States. They go for capitation. If five doctors each have
1,500 patients and each patient pays about $200 a month, it
amounts to a pile of money. A patient can select one of the five
doctors. However if the doctor sends too many people for CAT
scans and various other expensive procedures he is called before a
procedure committee and the patients are stacked up.
There are no easy answers. Our system is good. It needs to be
fixed. We cannot legislate against stupidity or when people do not
do things right. If there is a waiting line for hip fractures I am sure
the hospital board will allocate enough resources to shorten the
line.
How does my friend from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca envisage
this two tier system? When people are sick and cannot pay for
services we end up with a two tier system. The doctor says he will
see the patient in the clinic across the street at night because there
is not enough money in the system. That is what happens in a two
tier system.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, I am
glad the hon. member raised a couple of points. He illustrated the
salient misunderstanding of health care on the part of the
government.
He spoke about taking part of the $72 billion and putting it into a
private clinic system. That is what we are opposed to. Not a single
penny of public moneys, not a single penny of taxpayers' dollars,
will go into a private system.
When people are in the private system they have actually left the
public system and are spending their own money. They are still
contributing through their taxes to the public system and therefore
the pot of money in the public system will be preserved.
Because the numbers of people on waiting lists in the public
system will decrease there will be a greater amount of money on a
per capita basis in the public system, which will provide for greater
access and better equipment.
Another point the member raised was that if hospitals saw an
urgent need for something they would find the resources or the
money. The problem is that they do not have the resources. They
are rationing all manner of services and are not getting access
together. We have an opportunity not to duplicate any other system
in the world but to enable an excellent system to continue to be
excellent. We can do that by making the changes necessary to
preserve publicly funded medicare in this country through
amendments to the Canada Health Act. If we do not do that, we will
not have a health act in this country. We will not have publicly
funded health care access to people in this country in a timely
fashion. That is going to be the tragedy if we continue on our
present course.
The Speaker: My colleagues, it being 5.30 p.m., the House will
now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
16167
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government, on this 60th anniversary
of the ``On to Ottawa'' Trek, should offer an unequivocal and official apology
for the government of the day having perpetuated the following:
(1) having caused, through the use of violence as administered by the
combined police forces of the Regina City Police and the RCMP the termination
of the trek in Regina, Saskatchewan on July 1, 1935, with attendant loss of life,
injury and imprisonment;
(2) having contributed to, rather than detracted from the plight of the
unemployed by:
(a) forcing many unemployed young men into work camps,
(b) having prevented all the trekkers from coming to Ottawa to express their
democratic right for better conditions in the work camps,
(c) abrogating its responsibility of providing the necessary leadership in a time
of high unemployment which would have created decent and rewarding full
time employment;
16168
(3) displaying a total lack of policy initiatives which would have provided
meaningful work and wages for the unemployed, and for the violent attack on the
participants of the ``On to Ottawa'' trek.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I have this
opportunity to present the motion in the House today. This year
marks the 60th anniversary of the ``On to Ottawa'' trek. This
motion calls for an apology, which is 60 years overdue.
In Regina we have an historic marker set in front of the Regina
city police station. On it appears the following:
At 8.17 p.m. July 1, 1935, rioting erupted here in Market Square when RCMP
and city police arrested the ``On to Ottawa'' trek leaders as they addressed
trekkers and city residents. Rioting then spread to the 11th Avenue and Scarth
Street area. Ending near midnight, it left extensive property damage, numerous
injuries, and a city policeman, Detective C. Millar, dead.
The trekkers were single men en route to Ottawa from B.C. to demand better
conditions in relief work camps set up for the unemployed. They were stopped
in Regina on June 14 by the federal authorities, who feared a revolution if the
trek reached Ottawa. At a meeting between trek leaders and the federal cabinet,
mistrust grew, and trekkers were prohibited from advancing or going home. To
break the deadlock, Ottawa ordered the leaders' arrest. In the furor of the
resulting riot, the frustration of the trek's failure and years of unemployment
were released.
The next day the provincial government arranged for the trekkers to return to
their homes.
Signed by the Government of Saskatchewan in 1979, the text on
this marker refers to the tragic events known as the Regina riot. The
text is short and temperate and barely explains why the provincial
government signed an epitaph commemorating a riot. I will
attempt to do that.
Facts will show that the riot was planned and provoked not by
the trekkers but by the police on direct orders of the federal
government, which in so doing illegally usurped the authority of
the provincial government, which was in the process of negotiating
a settlement with the trekkers.
The riot was the climax of a strike of the relief camp workers
begun on April 4, 1935, in British Columbia. With a set of demands
adopted at a meeting of the relief camp workers' union in
Kamloops on March 10, 1935, the strikers stayed for two months in
Vancouver and then started east to Ottawa to put their grievances
before the government of Prime Minister R.B. Bennett.
Before arriving in Regina, the trek's ranks were augmented with
new recruits. By the time the trekkers reached Regina the numbers
had swelled to 2,000. Unbeknownst to the trekkers and the
Saskatchewan government, Regina was their ultimate destination,
not Ottawa.
Having stopped them in Regina, Prime Minister Bennett
arranged to meet with a few representatives. He obviously did not
want the entire trek to arrive in Ottawa, with however many more
who would have joined along the way.
Unfortunately the meeting with the Prime Minister was
unproductive. Bennett offered a temporary camp near Lumsden,
Saskatchewan, where the trekkers would go until arrangements
were made to return them to the permanent camps and the same
inhumane conditions they had left. All along the only option the
federal government was prepared to give the trekkers was no
option. The status quo is the operative word.
When the trekkers' representatives returned to Regina from
Ottawa, they attempted to undo the deadlock the Prime Minister's
offer had presented by developing a revised proposal. They worked
diligently to set up meetings with all the authorities. The trek
leaders also decided to hold a public meeting to inform the citizens
of the result of their meeting with the Prime Minister. Posters went
up, and it was known that only a few trekkers would attend the
rally.
(1735)
Early in the morning on July 1, the trek leaders initiated
negotiations with both the federal and the provincial governments
in the hope of obtaining an agreement for an early withdrawal. One
of the trek leaders, Arthur Evans, requested a meeting of federal,
provincial, and trek representatives. The chief federal
representative in Regina refused to meet with provincial officials
but agreed to meet with the trek representatives at 10.30 a.m.
At this stage federal officials in Ottawa refused an excellent
opportunity to reach a peaceful compromise. They refused any
compromise whatsoever. But the trek leaders did not give up. They
went to Liberal Saskatchewan Premier Jimmy Gardiner, who
promised them a reply the following morning. The premier had
arranged for a cabinet meeting that evening.
The fact is, when the trekkers were conferring with Gardiner the
federal government was preparing warrants and strategy for the
arrests of Evans and six other leaders of the trek. At the public rally
that evening a crowd of 2,200 had gathered to hear a report of the
trekkers' delegation to Ottawa. In this crowd there were no more
than 300 trekkers, as most had already been informed and were
slated to attend a ball game elsewhere. In other words, it was a
known fact that the meeting was for citizens rather than trekkers.
Why the choice was made to arrest the leaders in front of a mass
meeting of their supporters raises serious questions. Why they did
not wait until after the meeting, after the crowd had left, to make
the arrests has never been fully explained. However, it does not
16169
take a rocket scientist to understand that it was the nature of the
arrangements and the means by which the police carried them out
that provoked the Regina riot. A more discreet and less provocative
arrangement could have been devised and the arrests could still
have been carried out successfully.
The riot that resulted from this action left plainclothes detective
Charles Millar of Regina city police dead, scores of trekkers,
citizens and policemen injured, and several trekkers and Regina
citizens hospitalized with gunshot wounds. Downtown Regina was
left in a shambles.
The riot began as the Premier of Saskatchewan and the
provincial authorities were considering the trekkers' proposals.
The provincial government had not been informed of police
intentions. Premier Gardiner wired the Prime Minister late that
night, both protesting the police action and offering to disband the
trek under provincial auspices. It is not difficult to understand how
this marked the beginning of a dispute between the federal and
provincial authorities. Gardiner was fearful that the intransigent
federal attitude would lead to a resumption of hostilities and he
demanded the federal authorities take a more reasonable position.
The federal government had taken over provincial jurisdictions,
starting with control of the RCMP, which had moved to organize
the Regina city and railway police forces. Preparing for a
showdown, the federal government also moved into other
provincial areas, namely transportation, blocking the trekkers from
access to roads and allowing them to leave only if they agreed to go
to the camp near Lumsden.
The federal authorities had obviously taken it upon themselves
to instruct the RCMP in Saskatchewan in the enforcement of the
ordinary criminal law and not merely in matters under the Railway
Act. This represented another violation of provincial jurisdiction.
Based on the exchange between the Bennett and the Gardiner
governments, it is more than fair to say that the Premier of
Saskatchewan placed the responsibility for the tragic end to the trek
in Regina squarely on the shoulders of the federal government of
the day. The premier was not by any means alone in believing that.
Ten years ago, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the
``On to Ottawa'' trek, I presented a similar motion in the House. At
that time I had the benevolent support of one of our colleagues who
now sits on the other side of the House. She said: ``We should say
that we are sorry. While it may not mean much in terms of
individual compensation for the agony suffered by those people
who lived through the Depression, it would certainly be a first step
on the road to clearing the record''. This is quoted from the
Commons debate of October 7, 1985, when the present Deputy
Prime Minister supported an official apology to the trekkers and
the citizens of Regina.
(1740 )
She also stated: ``And we, both as members and as the
government, should apologize to the unemployed workers who
were forced to take to the streets to seek their own rights, which
they should have been given by the Prime Minister at the time, who
abdicated his responsibilities in this respect''.
Like our colleague in 1985, I now challenge the government to
listen and redress this pivotal event in our Canadian heritage. I
want to believe this government is different from the previous one.
History need not repeat itself once again.
Ten years ago the Deputy Prime Minister and member for
Hamilton East accused the Mulroney government of taking the
same attitude as the Bennett government of taking a hands off
approach to solving the unemployment crisis. She said: ``It does
not want to be involved in the creation of jobs because somehow
Conservative governments see something distasteful in direct
government job creation. In fact, the Bennett solution at that time
was to send the workers off to work camps, where they lived in
intolerable circumstances and in fact were not ever able to have the
dignity of a democratic election in those particular camps''.
The tables have turned. The hon. member now sits in power,
where she can actually do something to ensure there is not only
democracy but also employment, social justice, and a future for our
young people.
This government started its term with job creation and the
infrastructure program, but something terribly wrong has
happened. This government has been hijacked by some group with
another agenda.
The motion I have placed before the House might merely be
regarded as a footnote in history were it not for the fact that history
has a tendency to repeat itself. Since this year's budget, instead of
jobs we got cutbacks and massive decreases in provincial transfers.
Jobs, we are told, are not for the governments to create; they will
appear out of market forces-as if Prime Minister Bennett has been
resurrected one more time.
By leaving the provinces in the lurch, some of the provincial
leaders are quickly turning the country's clock back to the 1930s.
The present government still has an opportunity to make good on
its election promises and the hope they offered. The federal
government does not need to starve the provinces by abandoning its
responsibility to the people. The deficit reduction plan does not
need to be inhuman.
I agree with the endorsement from the member for Hamilton
East of my 1985 motion, when in reference to the apology she
suggested that ``that act of good faith and goodwill on the part of
the government would begin to restore the credibility this
government has lost in insisting upon measures that are
anti-worker, anti-family, anti-labour, and anti-union. Work must be
done or the government's word cannot be believed. Now is the
chance for the
16170
government to win back some of the credibility it has frittered
away since''-to which I add, the end of October 1993.
Let this government show us that it is not just another job
eliminator party. The Liberal government has its chance to stand up
and finally set the record straight by making to these people, the
strikers, a general, all-encompassing public apology.
The Deputy Prime Minister further stated 10 years ago: ``If
it''-meaning the Mulroney government-``is truly sincere about
beginning to gain back the confidence of young working people,
young unemployed people, older working people, and older
unemployed people to realize that the time has come for it to
endorse an all-party resolution which calls for an apology to
redress an event which occurred 50 years ago and which is
indicative of the type of Conservative mentality which has led all
Canadians to realize that Tory times are tough times''.
The sad fact of the matter is that history, as I have just outlined,
is in many ways and places across the country repeating itself.
Many of the problems for which the trekkers sought solutions in
the 1930s have returned in spades in the 1980s and continue in the
1990s. Once again we have massive unemployment. Once again we
are faced with widespread business failures, farm foreclosures,
personal bankruptcies, food banks, user fees, head taxes, and
policies that are reminiscent of an era we had hoped to have
surpassed.
The political repercussions and the legacy of the trek have a lot
of parallels with today's environment. The National Council of
Welfare's 1995 report on the last government budget states: ``The
policies of the 1990s will take us back to the 1950s''. Recent
statements and actions from at least two provincial governments
would confirm that. In a 1987 article in the Canadian Review of
Social Policy by Duncan Rogers, a former deputy minister of the
Alberta Social Services described the 1950s period as ``the
remnants of the old relief days of the 1930s''. He goes on: ``It was
not uncommon for children, particularly from larger families, to be
apprehended as neglected and become wards of the crown simply
because there was insufficient money available to the family''.
(1745)
The Liberal government is often accused of continuing the Tory
legacy, while at the same time promising initiatives which will
create jobs and opportunities for all Canadians. With nearly 10 per
cent of our population unemployed, unemployment has become a
chronic condition. Youth under employed is still worse, at 18 per
cent. The rate for Canadians aged 15 to 24 years is nearly double
the national average and costs the economy at least $4.5 billion per
year.
However, that is not the dearest price we are paying. Canada now
has the third highest rate of teen suicide in the world, which has
increased fourfold since 1960. The social and economic conditions
under which kids are living are creating a social phenomena
described as existential despair. Is that the best country the world?
Will more jails and longer sentences deter the problems? They
will do nothing if there is no hope for a future that brings rewards
and fulfilment.
I acknowledge the tremendous financial debt this country and
the public sector faces due to the gross mismanagement of previous
governments. I acknowledge the challenge that lies ahead for all of
us to begin to solve our financial problems. Surely we must find
ways of dealing with our problems other than on the backs of the
old and the poor.
As a Stats Canada study has shown, it is not increases in
government expenditure that has created the debt. In fact, only 6
per cent of the debt is due to increases in public expenditure. The
rest is due to loss of revenue and increases in interest rate
payments. Of that 6 per cent increase in government expenditures,
only 2 per cent is due to increases in social programs.
It is not the social programs which have created our debt. Yet it is
our social programs that are paying for it. It is the cutbacks in
health services, in unemployment insurance, programs to help train
and create jobs for young people. That is where the burden is being
placed to rectify the terrible, physical mistakes that past
Conservative and Liberal governments have made.
We are in a period of declining standards of living. Recently,
Stats Canada issued a report that in 1993 the average family
income in Canada declined by some 3 per cent, inflation factored
in. The decline for single parent families in that one year was 8.3
per cent. We are in a downward spiral.
New challenging solutions are needed. But the solutions of R.B.
Bennett did not work then and will not work now. I challenge the
government to come forward with new imaginative proposals to
give hope to our young people, to give employment to our young
people and to give young people a future.
I urge the House to adopt the motion to extend an apology for
how those strikers were treated in 1935 in Regina some 60 years
ago. They wanted to come to Ottawa to express their hope for a new
future, to express their desire to work. They did not want welfare.
They did not want the dole, they wanted jobs. Today the mass of
unemployed young people are looking for work. They do not want
handouts, they want a future.
I urge the House to adopt the motion as a symbolic gesture to our
young people that we are concerned about their future.
16171
Mr. John English (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak
to the motion of the hon. member for Regina-Qu'Appelle
concerning the 1935 ``On to Ottawa'' trek and the Regina riot.
The hon. member's motion recalls a time and place far removed
from the Canada of today. It was the time of the Great Depression,
a time of staggering unemployment, prolonged and terrible drought
and the near collapse of national economies. There were shrinking
markets and falling prices, all of which contributed to human
misery and hardship on a scale seldom seen before in North
America.
(1750 )
This was a time when a woman working in a textile factory in
Quebec could work a 60-hour week and earn only $5. The millions
of acres of prairie wheat fields were turned into dust bowls and
farmers walked away from family farms they had worked all their
lives.
In 1929 when the depression began there were 107,000
unemployed in Canada. By 1933, the worst year of the depression,
there were 646,000 unemployed, approximately one-quarter of the
Canadian work force at that time.
The response of the Bennett government to the depression for
younger men was to organize work camps. These work camps were
organized under the Department of National Defence. The workers
within them were paid 20 cents a day. This was an early and very
harsh form of workfare.
Conditions in the camps were well described by the member for
Qu'Appelle. They were camps in which work was done for the sake
of doing work. ``We are playing at highway building'', reported the
striker in his diary. ``What a joke we are. We make a ditch one day
and then change the plans and find that it is in the wrong place''. A
public servant for the Conservative government: ``Not one cent of
public money has been spent on reading material and recreational
equipment''.
The member has performed a service in drawing to our attention
the consequences of this kind of attitude toward the unemployed
and the consequences of using work camps, workfare or whatever
to deal with the unemployed.
One of the workers wrote at the time: ``It is really the fact that we
are getting nowhere in the plan of life that moves us forward to
march to Ottawa. We are truly a lost legion of youth rotting away
for want of being offered a sane outlet for our energies''.
The work camps were organized in B.C., it must be said, largely
by communist workers. The workers organized for the trek to
Ottawa and by the time they got to Regina in June of 1935 there
were 12,000 workers. The Liberal premier of the province,
Premier Gardiner, protested that the government of the day had
decided to stop the workers there. Prime Minister Bennett met with
the workers. The reply he gave them was very harsh and indeed he
would not even let them talk.
On July 1 unfolded the tragedy that has been described by the
member opposite. One policeman died and we mourn his memory.
Dozens of policemen and others, workers obviously, were injured.
It is a black mark in the history of the depression. It is a black mark
in the history of the city of Regina as well.
The hon. member's motion suggests that the Conservative
government of the day bears much of the responsibility for what
took place in Regina and the judgment of history. The judgment of
history in this case does largely bear out the hon. member's claim. I
might add that during the depression solutions were not easy. Many
kinds of solutions were made in various countries. The new deal in
the United States was a very successful response to the depression
but one that was thought to be authoritarian by many others.
There were responses. In Italy Mussolini responded by making
the trains run on time but also causing wars in places as far away as
Abyssinia and responses in Germany where public works projects
did create jobs.
The party that the hon. member represents, the CCF, was formed
during the 1930s and it sought solutions too. I quote from the
Regina manifesto which called for complete social ownership and
public management of the Canadian economy. It stated: ``All
financial machinery, transportation, communications, electric
power and all other industry and services essential to social
planning should be nationalized and operated by the state;
furthermore there be no compensation for bankrupt private
concerns for the benefit of promoters and for stock and bond
holders''.
That is not the stand of his party today obviously. I mention this
only because we have to give credit to people's views and their
times and not to support R.B. Bennett's decision on that day in this
particular case. However we can recognize that for us to judge
today what they thought then reflects the judgment of a later day.
We cannot, except in exceptional circumstances, apologize for
history. The only people who can apologize for what took place in
Regina, July 1, 1935 are the people who made the fateful decisions
that precipitated the riot and they are dead.
To apologize for the actions of a government in 1935 would be a
well meant but futile gesture. If we cannot change history we can
learn from it and we can look at the past wrongs through actions
today.
(1755 )
If you look at the demands of the strikers in 1935, you can see
that the men who marched on Ottawa have in many ways had their
wishes come true.
16172
The Canadian people tossed the Bennett government out of
office in Ottawa in October 1935 and the Liberal government,
which took office under Mackenzie King, righted many of the
wrongs against which the strikers protested. For example, section
98 of the Criminal Code, which had been used for arbitrary arrest
of strikers and others, was abolished.
By 1940 we had unemployment insurance in this country. After
1940, we built a social system that offered a kind of minimum that
the strikers and the people in the depression did not have.
The best monument to the memory to the strikers of 1935 is the
Canada we live in today. It is in our health care system which was
created about 25 years afterward. It is in our system of
unemployment insurance. It is in our comprehensive social
services and it is in our fair hiring practices which was central to
the protest made by the workers in Regina in 1935.
Look around and ask, could the ``On to Ottawa'' trek and the
Regina riot happen in Canada today? I think the answer is an
unequivocal no. The hon. member has done a service to the people
by placing the motion before the House, but while I cannot agree
with this call for an official apology, I can applaud the sentiment
that inspired this motion expressing profound regret that this
government, indeed, all Canadians feel for what happened to
Canadians during the Great Depression.
It would be more fitting to honour the memory by taking the
opportunity presented by this motion to re-dedicate ourselves to the
principles of social justice that were lacking in Canada in 1935.
Let us then work together to build a country where there is social
equality and equal opportunity for all. It seems wrong to look at our
own times and compare them to the 1930s and suggest that the
conditions today, in any way, resemble those of the 1930s. The pay
for the young men in the work camps was 20 cents a day. There was
no unemployment insurance. There was no health insurance. There
was no social system. There were no easy answers as well.
Today, for whatever problems our economy faces, we have an
unemployment rate that is probably one-third of what it was in the
depression. We have protection for people who have lost their jobs.
We have a government that is committed to creating jobs and work
for Canadians and to maintaining a social system that protects the
interests of all Canadians.
I hope members will agree, including the member for
Regina-Qu'Appelle, that what we have accomplished since 1935
is itself the best memorial to the strikers in Regina in July 1935.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to address the motion tabled by the hon.
member for Regina-Qu'Appelle, regarding the ``On to Ottawa''
trek which started in Vancouver and ended in Regina, on July 1,
1935.
I think it is important to tell our viewers how this episode came
about, and to see if there are lessons to be drawn from it. It must be
remembered that 1935 was one of the worst years of the Great
Depression, which was probably the worst economic disaster of our
century.
It must also be remembered that this disaster occurred at a time
when governments were saying: ``The less we get involved, the
better it is. The less we try to control, the more we will promote
wealth and its distribution''. Reality, however, turned out to be
quite different. There was an enormous lack of confidence in the
economy. Unemployment suddenly soared to astronomical levels,
which had nothing to do with reality, but which meant that people
could not get enough income to ensure their survival.
We must not forget that, in those days, there were no social
programs such as welfare and unemployment insurance. The safety
net was not yet in place; consequently, those who lost their jobs had
nothing to fall back on except begging.
(1800)
Faced with this situation, the government of the day decided to
set up work camps. Unfortunately, conditions in these camps were
absolutely appalling, and this eventually led to the strike.
There is a lesson to be drawn from certain important aspects of
this strike. We are about to launch a reform of the old age pension
and unemployment insurance programs, and crucial decisions will
also be made regarding things such as social assistance funding. It
is easy, when you overlook certain factors, to make quick
assumptions on the actual impact of such measures.
Finally, measures were established to ensure a distribution of
wealth, a distribution of income and an opportunity to balance
consumption. When essentially everything is in the hands of the
rich, what remains, once the rich have taken what they require to
satisfy their basic needs, becomes luxury. This situation moves the
economy a lot less than if everybody had enough to live on and to
feed their families.
This sort of strike, which was stopped by violence, happened
because the government of the day lacked sufficient means to
distribute wealth.
In order to avoid the excesses of the past and to permit
redistribution of wealth, we must absolutely avoid behaviour such
as that of the Government of Ontario, which drew up a list to show
people they could live and feed themselves on $90 a month,
forgetting milk for cereal and really crazy things. This sort of thing
could lead to behaviour similar to this strike. We forget about
respect for basic human dignity.
16173
The other point we should remember is that mandatory work
in unacceptable conditions is one thing that should be rejected as
an option, because this too represents a failure to respect people's
dignity. It leads to behaviour, which may not be justifiable, but
which can be understood on closer examination.
There is also another component, which got less attention this
afternoon, and that is police intervention. There have been a
number of police interventions in Canada's history which have
been more or less justifiable in the past. In this case, we are talking
about an intervention that affected workers in western Canada in
1935.
In Quebec, there was another one that affected us in a very
particular way. It happened during the October crisis in 1970,
where a lack of control over police action resulted in unacceptable
behaviour and unwarranted arrests, as was described earlier in
connection with events in Regina. The same thing happened in
Montreal and Quebec City during the October crisis in 1970.
As a state, as a country claiming to be one of the most
democratic in the world, with highly interesting democratic
practices we can boast of to others, we still have a number of
lessons to learn from these examples, which must drive us to
ensure that our police forces have very clear mandates and proper
training to deal with the situations that arise. They must obtain
mandates from a judge in special situations, so that such excesses
never occur.
I think we can say, with hindsight, that these young men-for it
was mainly young men in these work camps-represented in some
way the future of Canada at the time the strike took place. The way
that they were crushed is something that must never happen again.
(1805)
One of the participants in the march, Joe McEwen, summed up
the situation in a way by stating in the conclusion to his description
of what happened ``We were the salt of the earth''. Young people,
aged 20, aged 30, wanting to work, wanting acceptable conditions,
not finding them, and taking steps to let the government know how
dissatisfied they were. Their expression of the need for change fell
on totally deaf ears which led to aggressiveness and unacceptable
behaviour, probably on both sides, but this must serve as a lesson to
us today to make sure that we are not demolishing everything that
has been built and to avoid such situations.
If the next unemployment insurance reform requires, as we fear
it will, 26 weeks of work rather than 20 weeks in the first year of
eligibility for unemployment insurance, we will see an increase and
a perpetuation of the current statistics which show more and more
people on welfare because they are not eligible for unemployment
insurance. This type of reform leads directly to violent behaviour,
because when people cannot feed their families and provide them
with the basic necessities it is somewhat normal for them to seek
some way out, to show their dissatisfaction, sometimes in an
aggressive manner.
The other reform from which similar lessons must be learned is
the reform of old age pensions. Over the past 15 to 20 years, we in
Canada have developed a program which has enabled our seniors to
enjoy greater security than before, at least from the economic point
of view. In the upcoming reform, we must make sure that this
economic security is not threatened, so our seniors may continue to
have a decent income, one that enables them to meet their basic
needs and to make a proper contribution to society.
Often when these things are being discussed, there is talk of
fearmongering and a desire to frighten people. I think we have to
learn from the past and see that history often repeats itself. We
must always be sure that rights are protected, and this is the main
lesson I have learned from the motion, which asks the federal
government to make an official and unequivocal apology for the
reprehensible acts committed by the government of the day.
The main lesson I can draw today, in 1995, is that we must
ensure that the government opposite, as Parliament, does not repeat
the same mistakes and that it provides a system of social programs
that meets the needs of the 21st century. Globalization of trade does
not mean standardization of social programs and this seems to me
to be the challenge of the 21st century for Quebec and for Canada.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as a Saskatchewanian
born and bred, I cut my teeth on stories of the Dominion Day riots
and the much worse events that actually took place at about the
same time at the coal mine strike in Estevan.
I do not think there is anyone of proper mind who would deny
that the work camps are a blot on Canadian history. I do not think
anyone of my acquaintance would deny that the decision of the
government of the day to arrest the trek leaders was stupid and
unjustified.
Unfortunately, history is a chronicle of violence and injustice.
Historical revisionism notwithstanding, there is nothing you can do
to change history. As the bard said, ``what is done is done and
cannot be undone''.
I am very uncomfortable with the principle of apologizing to
people who suffered in the past because of my ancestors, if you
will. We are faced with a stream of people who want to be
apologized to for things their ancestors have suffered. At the
moment there are Canadians of Ukrainian descent asking for
apologies for the internment of their grandfathers and great-grand-
16174
fathers during the first world war. There are Canadians of Chinese
descent asking us to apologize as a society for the head tax.
(1810)
Where do we draw the line? Are we going to continue
apologizing forever? I had ancestors who were dispossessed of
their lands in Scotland in order to make room for sheep. Am I
supposed to go out and ask for apologies from people who had
nothing whatsoever to do with that? I do not believe so.
More important, besides the question of where to draw the line,
what is the point? Nothing we say or do here can undo the evil that
was done 60 years ago. To be meaningful, an apology requires a
certain degree of contrition. Frankly, I do not feel any guilt for
actions that took place in my province when I was just a little boy. I
did not break any heads, and I am not acquainted personally with
anybody who did.
If the hon. member for Regina-Qu'Appelle wants to assuage
his personal conscience or wants to go on a guilt trip, I am not
going to accompany him. I would respectfully suggest that if he
really wants to do something he should take a few thousand dollars
out of his bank account, track down each surviving protagonist and
buy each one a bottle of the best. That would be a commendable
and meaningful gesture, which I would applaud wildly.
What is being proposed here in the House today is meaningless;
it is window dressing. We are not going to resurrect the dead. We
are not going to heal the wounds of people who had their skulls
cracked 60 years ago. Let us get on with our lives. We have more
important things to worry about in the House.
I will not be supporting the motion made by the hon. member.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one interesting thing
about being a parliamentary secretary is that you get to stay up late.
So here we are. I thank the member for Regina-Qu'Appelle for
keeping me up this late and bringing the motion before the House.
The motion before us calls on the federal government, on the
60th anniversary of the ``On to Ottawa'' trek, to apologize for its
actions at the time. According to the motion, the government's
reaction to the march displayed a total lack of concern for the
unemployed and the government was responsible for violence, loss
of life, injuries, and the questionable jailing of several participants.
In proposing the motion the member has given us a chance to
consider the progress we have made in the last 60 years. I would
like to reflect on where we were then and where we are now as
relates to the labour movement. That is basically all we can do,
because we cannot turn back the clock.
On June 3, 1935, over 1,000 unemployed men began the ``On to
Ottawa'' trek. They were frustrated and angry about their plight
and determined to tell their political leaders and the nation that they
deserved better. The trekkers made stops in Calgary, Medicine Hat,
Swift Current, and Moose Jaw before arriving in Regina.
At Regina a delegation of eight men was chosen and sent to
Ottawa to meet with the Prime Minister. These talks failed. After
attempts were made to arrest the leaders of the trek the situation
deteriorated rapidly, leading to the Regina riot. By the end of it one
policeman was dead, several dozen protesters, constables, and
bystanders were injured, and 130 protesters were arrested. The
events of July 1, 1935 were incredibly traumatic and they stand out
in the pages of our history. What then did the trek accomplish?
What lessons can we continue to draw from it today?
(1815)
I think we can draw a number of lessons. First, it is vital that we
do not put ideology ahead of people's needs. Governments should
never let adherence to a particular ideology or fear of a particular
ideology blind it to the real needs of the people. Some parties in the
House should take that message to heart.
Another lesson of the trek is that if we as a society aspire to
economic prosperity and social peace, we have to encourage the
involvement of citizens. People have to take advantage of the
opportunity to act through anti-poverty groups, social
organizations and trade unions.
We hear a lot of union bashing by right wingers these days, but it
is a simple matter of fact that free societies and free trade unions go
hand in hand. Societies that do not have a vigorous union
movement challenging them to examine and re-examine their
policies and attitudes are sorely lacking. The sweeping economic
and social policy changes that we saw in Canada after World War II
came about because the people demanded change to the status quo.
These demands were translated into effective policies.
Without people who agitate-and that is probably how I would
classify my colleague across the way-criticize governments,
challenge policies and organize their fellow citizens we would
stagnate. We would not have made the progress we have in Canada.
It is because of the challenges issued by the trekkers and others
that we have built up social policies that go hand in hand with
economic growth and prosperity. For example, there is free
universal health care. Not only is it socially enlightened but it gives
Canadian businesses a competitive advantage. Medicare has
reduced the cost of health care to the economy and has left more
money in the pockets of individuals and businesses.
Similarly, good and balanced labour legislation that
acknowledges the rights and needs of trade unions promotes
stability in the workplace, improves productivity, maintains
purchasing power and
16175
results in the creation of pension funds that are then accessed for
both public and private investment.
I could give other examples but I think I have made my point.
Our collective experience with hard economic times, an experience
that includes the ``On to Ottawa'' trek, has given us a certain
perspective on social policy, a particular view of the meaning and
purpose of social programs. In the short term the ``On to Ottawa''
trek probably did not accomplish much. In the bigger picture,
though, it represents a shift in attitude. The work of the trekkers
and other activists of the era contributed significantly to the rise of
the Canadian labour movement.
The trek did not create a formal organization but it created
stirrings among the unemployed and among workers. It created the
conditions in which the labour movement could grow. Before a
strong labour movement could take root, working people had to
become conscious of their power, their value and their dignity. The
``On to Ottawa'' trek led to this awareness. Since then unions have
become a major force in Canadian society. Unlike the United States
where only 10 per cent of the workforce is organized, unions here
are relatively healthy and represent about 30 per cent of workers in
Canada.
Canadian society has developed in large part because of the work
and prodding of trade unions. I value and appreciate the role they
play in Canada. I have a significant bias as that is what I used to do
for a living before I came to this place. The labour movement of
today owes a lot to the ``On to Ottawa'' trekkers and to all other
men and women who struggled to make the Canadian society more
just, compassionate and democratic. With the rise of the labour
movement came new labour legislation. A milestone was PC order
1003 in 1944 which put into law the right of workers to join unions
and to engage in collective bargaining. That was not all that long
ago.
Since then governments have adopted a number of laws
involving work standards, workplace health and safety, and worker
protection. I am proud our laws are much more progressive and
responsive to working people than the laws in the United States.
(1820 )
In order that our laws continue to reflect and meet the needs of
today's workforce we are in the process of a comprehensive review
of the Canada Labour Code. In the spring we anticipate presenting
legislation to the House for all members to consider. Our goal is to
ensure a balanced system that benefits all of us.
Again I thank the member for introducing the motion. It reflects
on how difficult times were for millions of Canadians 60 years ago.
The changes the trekkers were trying to achieve was time well
spent. It gives us an appreciation of how far we have come in
working together to create conditions for social peace. This is a
heritage we have to protect so that working Canadians can continue
to build the country and continue to create opportunities for all.
I agree with members opposite who have spoken before me that
we cannot go back in time to try to understand why people did what
they did. However we can learn from our mistakes and we can
advance as we have in the country. As I have mentioned, let us hope
the lessons we have learned from the trekkers will be put into
legislation. They will always have a place in our hearts and our
history simply because they helped to start the labour movement in
Canada.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to speak but since there
is some time remaining I will say a few words on the motion of the
hon. member for Regina-Qu'Appelle, which I was pleased to
second.
My reason for seconding the motion was to allow us to debate an
event in Canada's history that serves as a reminder to us all of some
difficult periods in our history that have in a sense given birth to
many of the progressive pieces of social legislation and programs
we now enjoy in Canada.
It serves us well to remember events such as the march to
Ottawa, the ``On to Ottawa'' trek of 60 years ago, and the struggles
our forebears undertook to pave the way for some of the social
programs we regard with such pride today.
On the question of offering an unequivocal and official apology,
I am not sure I would support that part of the motion for the same
reasons that have already been expressed by my colleagues on both
sides of the House. In this day and age we cannot judge the actions
of our ancestors. We can only learn from them. I express that
caveat in my endorsement of the debate the hon. member initiated.
I was a little uncomfortable with the member's attempt to
compare current circumstances with the depression that led to the
``On to Ottawa'' trek and the unfortunate occurrences that took
place in Regina on July 1, 1935. Canada has moved a long way
from those unfortunate days. The struggles and the sacrifices of the
workers who paid that price were part of what brought the country
to where it is today.
(1825 )
Even though we presently have our own economic difficulties in
Canada, in no way do they compare to the difficulties those
workers experienced in the dirty thirties which have been
eloquently described by the hon. member and others in this House.
Those difficulties are part of the past which Canada must learn
from.
16176
With those caveats, I want to commend the hon. member for
Regina-Qu'Appelle on having introduced his motion and on
having brought our attention to this chapter in Canada's history.
It has allowed members on both sides of the House to draw some
lessons from that period in Canada's past.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Colleagues, we only have a
few minutes left in this private members' hour. Would it be the
disposition of the House for the member under whose name the
motion stands to close the debate on this motion by taking no more
than two minutes under right of reply and then we would adjourn?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to thank the members of the House for giving me
this opportunity of closing the debate.
I do wish to thank the member for Cape Breton
Highlands-Canso for being a seconder, in that way allowing the
motion to be introduced today and allowing the debate. Since there
was no member of my party here, his gracious action in allowing
his name to be used to second the motion is greatly appreciated. I
recognize as well that when he did that, he did not necessarily
endorse everything in the motion, nor all the comments I would
make.
Despite what some hon. members say, we cannot rectify the past.
We cannot mend broken bones nor can we raise up the dead, but I
think it is important that in some instances we say that what was
done back then was wrong. We should do it in an official way by
extending an apology.
To me it then becomes a signpost in the evolution of our
civilization. A formal act of this Parliament, for example
apologizing and stating that what occurred in the Regina riot was
wrong, becomes a signpost in our evolution.
I hope as well that what some of the hon. members particularly
from the government side have stated is true, that there is a great
difference between conditions then and now. Indeed, there are
many differences. but the fear of many of us is that we are sliding
into situations quite similar to the last depression.
That was one of the reasons I also wished to bring this item up.
While there are differences, unfortunately there are also growing
similarities, particularly the sense of hopelessness many of our
young people feel, the lack of jobs, the lack of a future, the lack of
opportunity. Surely those young men in those camps must also
have felt a sense of hopelessness for the future which motivated
them to start the trek to Ottawa to bring to the attention of
Parliament the conditions which existed.
I hope those conditions will never return again. The reality is
however that many of our young Canadian citizens face the future
not with hope and aspirations, but with dejection and
unemployment.
I hope the government and this Parliament will remember what
the Bennett government did back then and will reject it as a
solution to the problems we face. I hope that we will work together
toward a new solution to the problem.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the
Order Paper.
It being 6.30 p.m. the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)