CONTENTS
Monday, November 6, 1995
Bill C-95. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading and
amendment 16221
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 16240
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 16243
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 16243
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 16245
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 16245
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 16245
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 16245
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 16246
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 16247
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 16248
Mr. Harper (Churchill) 16248
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 16251
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 16252
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 16252
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 16252
Bill C-95. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading and
the amendment 16253
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 16260
Division on amendment deferred 16268
Bill C-94. Motion for third reading. 16269
Bill C-88. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 16276
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 121; Nays, 57 16276
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time andreferred to a
committee.) 16277
Bill C-108. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading
and the amendment 16277
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 32; Nays: 146 16277
Bill C-95. Consideration resumed of secondreading motion 16278
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 54; Nays, 124 16279
16213
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, November 6, 1995
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should oblige all railway
companies that receive National Transportation Agency authorisation to
abandon branch lines or sections under the National Transportation Act, 1987,
to offer such branch lines or sections for public sale before abandoning them.
He said: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank my
colleague in the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for
Winnipeg-Transcona, for letting me take his place this morning
and for taking my turn last Monday. As you know, last Monday,
this House, at the behest of the Leader of the Government, went so
far as to sit on the day a referendum important to the future of
Quebec and Canada was held in Quebec. Another demonstration of
love and affection from our colleagues in the Liberal Party.
I just want to say that in Quebec, we have a useful motto: Je me
souviens. I can tell you Quebecers felt this decision was highly
improper, as was the demonstration of love and affection in
Montreal by 60,000 people on the Friday preceding the referendum
and financed by Canadian Airlines, Air Canada and VIA Rail.
I repeat, we have a useful motto in Quebec: Je me souviens. I can
tell you that as the transport critic, as soon as I get a chance I will
certainly return the favour to these three companies.
Motion M-494 reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should oblige all railway
companies that receive National Transportation Agency authorisation to
abandon branch lines or sections under the National Transportation Act, 1987,
to offer such branch lines or sections for public sale before abandoning them.
Perhaps I may explain that the purpose of this motion is, in a
way, to apply retroactively a provision that appears in Bill C-101. I
imagine this will not be news to anyone who is familiar with the
railway sector and especially with the decisions of the National
Transportation Agency. As you know, when a company, either CN
or CP, used to go before the National Transportation Agency,
permission to abandon lines was practically automatic.
Bill C-101 now before the Standing Committee on Transport
provides that before a line is abandoned, it will first be offered for
public sale. I should explain that if Bill C-101 is adopted in its
present form, railway companies will have to submit a three-year
plan, starting in 1996. The fact remains, however, that some branch
lines are already in the process of being abandoned, although
interested groups or provincial governments may have shown an
interest in continuing operations.
The purpose of this measure is therefore to deal with part of what
has happened recently. However, if Bill C-101 is adopted as tabled,
which means offering for sale prior to proceeding with
abandonment, our party will not object to the substance of the bill.
However, we will try to obtain extensions of the time limits
because some are really too short to allow for a proper evaluation
of the operations offered for sale. But we will have a chance to
discuss that later on.
As I was saying, the purpose of this motion is to save segments
of railway lines for which a decision of abandonment has been
issued by the National Transportation Agency. Bill C-101 provides
that the railway companies must offer for sale the segments they
wish to abandon. Even considering all the deficiencies of the
abandonment procedure in Bill C-101, this measure should make it
easier for these segments to be taken over by short line railway
operations, because it would oblige railway companies to sell
segments that are to be abandoned.
There are segments in Quebec that would probably be viable as
short line railways: the decision of abandonment has already been
issued, but the tracks are still intact. Today we have no guarantee
that railway companies will first try to sell to short line railways, in
order to maintain segments. In fact, we could hardly expect railway
companies to sell to short line railways if it is more attractive to
sell a segment for uses other than railway transportation. It is
common knowledge that railway companies in Canada own large
16214
amounts of real estate. They may prefer to speculate in real estate
as opposed to continuing a railway operation. That is the point I
wanted to make.
Public interest is not a consideration in commercial decisions by
railway companies. That is unfortunate because, as you know, in
some cases these companies obtained the land around a right of
way when this country was first settled. Furthermore, Canada
expanded from east to west thanks to the railways. Western Canada
was developed thanks to the railways. These companies were given
crown land for their railway rights of way and now are acting more
like speculators.
(1110)
In Quebec there are at least three major branch lines in this
situation: Chapais, Lachute and Québec Central, totalling some 550
kilometres. Negotiations are currently under way concerning some
of these lines.
The effect of our motion would be to ensure that railway
companies negotiate in good faith with those interested in creating
SLRs to run these branch lines. You will note that my trust in the
national railways is rather limited. Had we had been able to have
faith in them, this motion would have been totally unnecessary; the
necessity for it arises out of our less than total confidence in them.
The Government of Quebec has already done its part with
respect to the Lachute branch line by forbidding any change in its
land use. If CP lets the situation get any worse, however, the tracks
that are in place will deteriorate and no longer be useable.
It is therefore important for the CP to put this branch line up for
sale promptly. It is also interesting to see, since Quebec does not of
course possess the fullness of its powers that would have come with
sovereignty, the concrete action taken by Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Regional Development Guy Chevrette in announcing
this past October 16 that the rail corridor linking Mirabel and
Thurso would be declared a special intervention zone. Publication
on October 11 in the Quebec official gazette of a draft decree to that
effect had the immediate result of reserving the land covered by the
decree for railway purposes and of forbidding any operations
contrary to that use.
I would like to take this opportunity to praise Mr. Chevrette, the
minister responsible for regional development, for he-unlike
certain of our friends across the way, the Minister of Transport for
Canada in particular-is well placed to appreciate the importance
of a rail line, an airport or a seaport as a tool of regional
development. I mentioned before in this House and it bears
repeating that several businesses are interested in locating in
outlying areas of Quebec or elsewhere and insist as a
prerequisite-it is sometimes their principle condition-on there
being a deep water port, an adequate highway and superhighway
system, and a rail line if the material to be shipped is very heavy
and cannot be trucked. Merely looking at the state of our highways
and superhighways is enough to again convince us how lax the
federal government is, compared to the U.S., when it comes to
truck load limits.
As an illustration of the railway's worth as a tool of economic
development, let me give the example of a cement plant project at
Port Daniel in the Gaspe, in the riding where my spouse was born.
This is a village of some 3,500 people, with a very high rate of
unemployment-we are all aware of the state of the fishing
industry in Gaspe-and the developers interested in the cement
plant have set two conditions. First, there must be a deep water
seaport, which the Port Daniel bay provides, and second the cement
dust, or powder, or whatever it is called, must be shippable by boat
or by railcar, thus making the presence of a rail line a condition for
the deal. CN is considering abandoning the Gaspe rail line.
Obviously, if there is no rail line, the 450 jobs that would be created
by the cement plant will never see the light of day, because of the
two conditions set by the developers.
(1115)
I am pleased to inform the member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, who once again reveals that
he is totally disconnected from his riding. He should, perhaps, go
there a bit more often and be a bit more active. He should be aware
that this was another of the requirements set by the promoters.
What is a special intervention zone, such as the one the
Government of Quebec established for the Mirabel-Thurso
railway corridor? Quebec's act respecting land use planning and
development permits it to establish special intervention zones in
order to resolve land development problems whose urgency or
seriousness justifies such an intervention.
This is the first time, since the law came into effect in 1980, that
a minister has used such power to declare a special intervention
zone by order. This decision stresses the importance the
government accords to maintaining the rail link between Thurso
and Mirabel to protect the economic development of the region.
I would also like to stress how important and how timely this
matter is. We could perhaps come up with a short list to justify just
how relevant and current our motion is. We could quickly make a
list of abandoned lines. We could name some in each province.
In Ontario, for example, the CN Chatham line is scheduled to be
abandoned on July 14, 1996. There is also the Newmarket line. In
Quebec, there is the CN Chapais line, from Franquet to Chapais,
97.34 miles long; the CN Taschereau line, from La Sarre to
Cochrane, 82.42 miles; the CN Montmagny line, from Harlaka to
Saint-Romuald; the CN Chandler line, from Sainte-Adélaïde to
Gaspé-you can see with what I was saying about the cement plant
16215
project earlier, how relevant this motion becomes-; the CN Sorel
line, from Sorel to Tracy; and the list goes on.
In British Columbia, there is the CP Slocan line; in Manitoba,
the CN line at Erwood; there are other lines in Ontario; the CN line
from Foothills to Spur Turo; the CN Graham line; the CN
Manitouwadge line; the CN Midland line, and the list goes on. All
of this adds up to a total number-and I will try to find my figures
here-of abandoned lines for the year representing, by region, 48
per cent in Ontario, 19 per cent in Quebec, 23 per cent in the
Maritimes and 10 per cent in the Prairies.
This motion clearly illustrates the urgency of ensuring the
availability of lines already approved for abandon, until new
provisions in Bill C-101 apply, if they are passed as a whole, and
thus of ensuring that the recent past is covered, rather than have the
companies ruthlessly abandoning lines with the support of the
National Transportation Agency, because, I repeat, it was almost
automatic. I had an opportunity to experience the trauma of arguing
before the National Transportation Agency, when I argued in
favour of the CP Lachute line, and we saw which way the Agency
invariably leans. It is unfortunate, but, I think the number of
decisions the Agency has made in favour of the railways clearly
illustrates what I am saying.
In conclusion, what we are seeking with this motion, is to force
the government to implement the provisions of Bill C-101
immediately in order to preserve railway branch lines that are
important for Quebec, until Quebec achieves political sovereignty,
of course, which we expect to be very soon. Then, it will be able to
exercise its powers to the fullest and will not have to go and beg
before the National Transportation Agency of Canada for decisions
to be made. As Jean Lesage said in 1960, we will be ``Maîtres chez
nous'', and that is what Quebecers want.
(1120)
[English]
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak
to the motion put forward by the hon. member for
Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans.
His concerns reflect an appreciation for the approach advocated
by the government toward rail line rationalization. The wording of
his motion implies support for the line rationalization process set
out in Bill C-101, the National Transportation Act.
The government has noted the widespread concerns expressed
by several interested parties regarding the existing rail line
rationalization process. Deficiencies have been recognized and we
believe a remedy has been proposed through Bill C-101.
On October 2, 1995, Bill C-101 was referred to the Standing
Committee on Transport. Committee hearings are currently under
way.
Canada's rail network is overbuilt. Eight-four per cent of CN and
CP traffic is moved over one-third of the network. Traffic density is
only 60 per cent of the average of the top seven major railroads in
the United States. It has been estimated that some 50 per cent of
current CN and CP trackage is surplus to their needs. However,
many of these lines could be successfully operated by short lines or
regional railways.
Rationalization is under way but it is occurring slowing due to
the complicated abandonment process contained in the National
Transportation Act, 1987. There is widespread recognition that
future rail financial viability will depend greatly on the railway's
ability to accelerate plant rationalization and restructuring its
networks.
Bill C-101, the National Transportation Act, is intended to
streamline and modernize transportation regulations. In particular
it will lift the regulatory burden on rail to increase its
competitiveness in an increasingly continental market.
The bill contains provisions to streamline and shorten the current
process for rail rationalization, making it commercially oriented,
less adversarial and more conducive to the sale or lease of surplus
rail lines to new operators. In conjunction with those provisions,
the process for entry of smaller low cost rail carriers to operate in
co-operation with CN and CP has been eased.
As demonstrated by the U.S. experience following deregulation
of its railway industry in 1980 with the passage of the Staggers Act,
railway rationalization need not result in the abandonment of track.
In the United States since 1980, although 34 per cent of the total
rail route miles were trimmed from the rail line railroad networks,
less than half that track was abandoned. Almost 30,000 miles of
track were sold to successful short line railways and saved from
abandonment.
Today there are over 500 short line railway companies in the
United States, of which 263 were created since 1980. In Canada
only 10 new independent short lines were created since 1988.
Let me emphasize that the line rationalization process set out in
Bill C-101 is not as radical as that in the United States. However
one of its main features is that it will provide opportunities for any
interested party to acquire lines surplus to the needs of CN or CP
for continued use as rail lines.
In the event that there is a lack of interest in purchasing a
particular line for rail purposes or a sale agreement is not reached,
each level of government will have an opportunity to decide
whether or not to acquire a line at net salvage value for public
purposes.
16216
Only after a railway company has gone through the process I
have described and it has been unsuccessful in transferring the line
to a new owner, whether it be a private company or a government,
will it be able to abandon operations over the line and dispose of
the land corridor and track assets. This will be a major
improvement over the current process.
The current process has caused some parties significant concern.
For example, some provincial governments have expressed their
wish to preserve an economic rail line, even though they have not
had any traffic on them for many years, in the event that some day
there may be a need for them. However, it has been normal practice
when lines are put forward for abandonment that the provinces do
not take positive action to find a new operator or acquire the lines
themselves.
(1125)
Under the National Transportation Act, if a rail line is not
purchased by new operators for continued rail purposes the onus is
placed on governments at all levels to come forward and express
their interest in the rail corridors by financing the cost of their
acquisition at net salvage value.
Even if the government possessed the powers to comply with the
action requested in the member's motion there would be no
beneficial outcomes. Currently only five rail lines have been
ordered abandoned by the agency. Three of them are scheduled for
abandonment in 1995 and the remainder in 1996. Negotiations are
under way for the purchase of one of the lines to be abandoned in
1996 and no interest has been expressed by anyone in the purchase
of the others.
There is really nothing more to add except that on the strength of
the motion I look forward to the hon. member's support of Bill
C-101, the National Transportation Act. We should not delay the
bill, as the hon. member has suggested, but should get on with,
hopefully in the next two to three weeks, getting it through the
House so that the process is improved and interested parties, be
they short lines, governments or other interests, can take advantage
of the opportunities presented by the new rationalization policy of
the government.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as I prepared to speak on the motion it seemed the hon.
member from the Bloc must not have realized what was in Bill
C-101, because it is exactly what he is asking for.
However I listened to the content and the direction of his speech
and obviously he was aware of it. It seems as though he went
around in a circle and fell out the middle. I am not really sure what
its purpose was unless it was simply to take another 20-minute
opportunity to bash Canada and promote Quebec's separation.
The member is looking for a particular provision that is
contained in Bill C-101, specifically in clauses 143 and 145. On the
one hand he says this is an urgent matter and that he wants to get it
done very quickly. At one point he used the word retroactively.
There are a couple of things with the Bloc Quebecois that I would
like to do retroactively.
There is a bit of a paradox here. While the hon. member stood to
say this was an urgent matter that needed to be taken of quickly,
Bill C-101 is scheduled to go for clause by clause consideration and
to come back to the House for final passage the week following
next week's break. He also said that Bill C-101 needed to be
extended, that there has not been enough time and that they want to
stretch it out.
I do not know why he needs more time. We have heard dozens
and dozens of witnesses, intervenors in committee. The hon.
member, as the transport critic for the official opposition, is a
member of the committee. Perhaps he needs more time because he
has not been at many of the committee meetings. He showed up
once or twice.
I am the national transport critic for the national opposition party
and I have been at those meetings. Any time I have not been able to
attend my colleagues have been there in my support and in support
of people across Canada. People can approach the government and
make application to the government. They can also approach a
creditable, viable opposition party when they do not happen to
agree with what the government is doing or they want to ensure
there is more pressure and support.
The hon. member has shown up at committee meetings on
occasion. I cite one of those occasions to show how his interest has
nothing to do with national transportation or with the act. It only
has to do with his own sovereignty, separatist agenda. Last week
one or two witnesses had already spoken and then we heard from a
group of representatives of the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities representing municipalities across the country,
including in Quebec.
(1130 )
Toward the end of the intervenors' presentation the hon. member
joined the committee for a brief period of time. As questions to the
delegation opened he immediately tore into them, in a very vicious
and embarrassing manner, because the brief was not presented in
French as well as in English. Had he been there at the beginning he
would have heard the explanation and apology for the fact that it
was not available in French, that it would be available the
following day, that the delegates had only completed the brief that
morning, that they would have normally done this, that they always
do but on this occasion they did not have the time to do it. It was
16217
quite an embarrassing outburst from someone who claims to be a
member of the national official opposition. It may be official by
name, but it is certainly not national.
The hon. member stayed for the next presentation, which
happened to be by a delegation from the province of Quebec, and
then left before any further presentations were made.
I do not know what his real bottom line is. If his real bottom line
is to have the amendments made that have been outlined in his
motion, they are contained in Bill C-101. He can come to the
committee and aid us in completing that bill. I am sure
amendments will be offered. I shudder to think what will come
from his party, but I am sure amendments will be proposed. I can
guarantee that there will be amendments proposed by the Reform
Party. Amendments have been proposed by the Liberal Party. The
bill is there to be examined. The committee will hear presentations
and will react to the needs of the Canadian people.
If the hon. member comes to the committee for the purpose of
aiding it and seeing the bill completed, then he will get the very
things he asked for this morning. However, if he comes to the
committee to delay and extend the proceedings, after having not
been to any of them, then he is fighting not against Bill C-101, not
against the Liberal government, but against his own motion. That
will be a very interesting aspect for him to take up.
I would close by pointing out one item for clarification. From
time to time, prior to the referendum and since the referendum, the
Reform Party has raised the question of who rightly should be the
official opposition in the House. By past precedent it falls to the
Bloc Quebecois because it has a superior number of one. Some
people, both those sitting opposite and some misinformed people in
the media, have claimed that the Reform Party has done this by
way of opportunism. It was not opportunism; it was our duty to the
Canadian people and our obligation as members of the House to
represent all of Canada on all bills, including national
transportation bills, rather than the narrow views of one separatist
group within one province.
If the hon. member co-operates he will get his wish.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the
opportunity to speak to Motion No. 494 this morning. The motion
is somewhat redundant, but at the same time it is important to
speak to an issue that is fundamentally important to all Canadians;
that is, the national transportation system and in particular what
takes place when rail rationalization occurs in a country that
continues to change, as it normally would in a federation. The
needs of the public and the regions of the country are changing as
well, so it is important to understand that transportation needs
change.
Under Bill C-101 there are a number of clauses that deal with rail
abandonment. In particular, the bill deals with the ability to transfer
rail. This is a unique change in direction by the Government of
Canada. It is a welcome change.
For those of us who have followed the transportation system and
the abandonment of lines, under the NTA of 1987 the process that
had to be followed for certain lines to be abandoned was that they
first had to go to the NTA to prove that the particular line did not
have commercial viability. Can you imagine how easy that would
be to do if you first of all demarketed the line, which is what they
did to start off with.
(1135)
Most railway companies would not admit this, but when I had
the opportunity to chair a special committee that went across the
country to look at CN privatization we ran into some
documentation that proved that in certain cases high ranking
officials in CN sent out memos to their regional management,
dictating and explaining to them how to demarket a particular
branch line so they could go to the NTA and have them signify that
it was not commercially viable and allow them to abandon it.
Bill C-101, and the motion presented by the member this
morning suggest a different way of doing business. That is, to
acknowledge that transportation companies are no different from
any other business in Canada and that you cannot force them to
deal with what governments are dealing with every day, and that is
the public interest, when in fact transportation companies are more
interested in the bottom line. If you force them to try to maintain a
particular line without compensating them in a manner that would
help the company to be successful, they will go about it in one
fashion or another to make sure those lines do get abandoned.
Public policy and public interest are a very important portion of
this bill. The critics who look at it are continuing to say that the
government is getting out of the public interest business in
transportation, but we are putting it where it belongs. Public
interest is being taken out of the hands of every day companies in
the transportation sector and put back in the hands of the
politicians, to make decisions whether they want to subsidize
certain lines in this country and whether for regional purposes they
want to maintain certain branch lines. Those particular public
interest initiatives and policies will have to be put back in the hands
of cabinet and parliamentarians if we are going to have a private
sector transportation system that works.
In the member's presentation to the House this morning he
talked about time frames. It is important to talk about time frames
because there is a perception left by the member that the
government is not serious about short line railways becoming a
new phenomenon in Canada, that it is just lip service and more than
16218
likely most of these lines will be abandoned because of the time
frame.
I totally disagree with the member, as is unfortunately usually
the case. The time frame for sale of a line starts with the unique
process in the bill of forcing the railways, through clause 141, to
put forward a three-year plan that is available to anyone, including
ourselves as members of Parliament. Can you believe that? They
are going to let us see something for a change. In that three-year
plan they will signify whether they want to continue a particular
line or whether they are interested in selling it or if they cannot sell
it whether they will eventually abandon it.
That three-year plan, which the governments have asked the
railways to table on a regular basis and to revamp whenever
necessary, will give members of Parliament and the public an
opportunity to review just what lines are not in the best interest of a
private corporation's business plan.
The next process is the intent of any individual municipality, any
regional government, whoever is interested in owning a particular
line that the other railways do not want to own. They will have 60
days to signify interest in that particular line. Within 60 days all
they have to do is write a letter to CP or CN or any other
corporation that owns a railway and say they would like to look at
purchasing that particular piece of track. Then the 60 days will be
allowed to elapse. When that elapses, they have five months after
the 60 days to sit down and negotiate the sale of that line to that
individual, that municipality, that provincial government.
(1140 )
As can be seen, 60 days is two months and after that is the
five-month negotiation process, which gives seven months
minimum. Of course if the negotiation is a serious one and both
parties are moving along in their negotiations, I am quite sure the
railways would be interested in an extension, because it is not in a
railways' interest to abandon a line if they do not have to. If they
can get an agreement with an individual to run a line to bring a
particular shipment of goods from a particular corporation at the
end of the line, which is the reason the railway is there, and get it
down to the other end, certainly they would do so.
I want to emphasize this. In clauses 141 and then 143 to 145 it
lays out very specifically how these rail lines would be transferred
from one corporation to the next. In the final analysis, if nobody is
interested, be it the Quebec government, a municipality in Quebec,
or a private sector individual, why would you want to force a
corporation like CP or CN to run a line that absolutely nobody else
would like to run? Quite frankly, I think it would have a right to
abandon that line.
I want to emphasize that the real issue is not whether a piece of
track is torn up, it is what is done with the right of way. That is the
real issue in the long term. One of the problems the U.S. is having
with the Staggers Act and the changes in policy it made for line
abandonment is that when it abandons a line it does not look after
the right of way but sells it to the private sector. Depending on
where that land is, it is chopped up for residential lots and things
like that. That land cannot be re-acquired 20 years from now
without expropriation.
One of the main issues that is going to face us as we rationalize
our railway system is what do we do with that right of way when we
tear the track up and pull it out there. That is all salvage value,
which is fine, but if we keep that particular right of way we can
always put the track back at some future date. Most people do not
see the significance of that right of way.
In southern Ontario, for example, that is a major issue, because
most of that land is privately owned outside of that right of way.
Once the private sector gets hold of it we are never going to get it
back. Governments, in particular provincial and municipal, have a
very important role to play on that issue. It is not a federal
government jurisdiction. I think it is a provincial jurisdiction. That
is where the member should be focusing his attention. That is the
mistake that was made in the Staggers Act. Some companies in the
U.S. wish they had not sold the right of way but kept it for future
use and land banked it.
Powers in this place rest in a number of ways and in a number of
fashions. The Minister of Transport in this bill still has the power to
subsidize branch lines. He still has the power to subsidize certain
rail lines. I will use just one rail line as an example, which is close
to my home.
There is a line that runs all the way up to Churchill. It is a very
important line to northern Manitoba for regional development. The
line could be abandoned tomorrow if it were dealt with in dollars
and cents, because it does not make a profit. However, that line is
important in the long term to the viability of northern Manitoba. I
would suggest that if the people of northern Manitoba, the
municipalities that exist there and the shippers on that line were
really interested in regional development and if the federal
government would enter into a co-operative arrangement with
them, someone else who is interested in it could run that line.
Maybe they can make it closer to being profitable than it is now. At
the same time, it is very transparent that we are subsidizing a line
that does not make money because of regional development needs.
That is where the public interest should lie, in a transparent
fashion. Whether we want to subsidize a losing operation is a
different story. However, forcing railways to carry losing lines is
not the way to go about the business of running a corporation,
whether it be private or public. I differ with many people on that
argument.
16219
I hope the member who has brought this motion forward, as
has been mentioned by the Reform Party, spends less time trying
to break up Canada and more time in the committee. He will
realize there are some very good parts to this bill. At the same
time if he supports it he will find there are some good
entrepreneurs in Quebec who would love to run a railway and who
could run it a lot better than CN or CP ever did.
(1145)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. colleague from Kootenay
West-Revelstoke express his views on the official opposition. He
believes it would be much more interesting if the Reform Party
formed the official opposition in this debate about railways. I can
assure that I, for one, will stick to the matter under consideration.
The matter at issue is that the National Transport Agency has
authorized CP and CN to abandon a number of sections on some
important rail lines, in particular the Lachute, Chapais and central
Quebec lines.
These abandonments will certainly have a major, serious impact
on regional development. For example, I will only talk about the
Lachute line because my colleague from Argenteuil and myself
tabled a brief asking that this line not be abandoned. The matter at
issue is the abandonment of part of this line-that is, the central
part and not the start or the end. Talk about a rational decision: they
leave the start and end of the line but remove the middle.
To show you just how lightly the agency gave this authorization,
I will mention the fact that, in concluding that the line was not
profitable, the commissioners simply relied on the argument that
the railway had not made enough money over the past three years,
when everyone knows that we were in a recession and that these
three years therefore did not reflect the railway's real earning
potential.
During these hearings, it was conclusively proven that CP had
made no effort to develop or even keep its clients. On the contrary,
it seemed to try to drive them away.
It got to the point that the Quebec Ministry of Transportation,
using its urbanization powers, had to issue an order to at least
prevent the dismantling of the Lachute line. The ministry cannot
oppose the end of operations, but it can prevent the line from being
dismantled.
This brings me to the topic of Bill C-101, on which we will vote
very soon and to which my colleague from
Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans and myself will propose
amendments.
True, Bill C-101 will require CP and CN to sell the branch lines
they abandon. However, it is clear that the government has a new
rail policy in that, first, there will no longer be any public hearings
and, second, the National Transportation Agency, whose name and
role will change, will no longer have any authorization to give.
In other words, the government has just about set aside the
notion of public service in favour of a strictly for-profit mentality. I
think that this is another example of the government's general
tendency to disregard the public interest and think like an
accountant rather than an entrepreneur. One would have expected a
responsible government to encourage railway companies to
contribute to regional development, thus spurring their own
development and bringing in tax revenues for the government,
instead of helping them sell off the branch lines they are not
interested in.
(1150)
In conclusion, as my colleague pointed out, I think that only
Quebec sovereignty will result in making the public interest a
priority in government decisions.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans wants the
government to require the railway companies to put lines that have
been ordered abandoned up for sale.
I contend the lines have already been advertised as available for
sale. The fact they have been subjected to the long abandonment
process which is now in place should be seen as a clear indication
the railways do not want them.
Currently there are only five line segments that fall into the
category defined by the member's motion. The CP Cornwall
subdivision from Soulanges, Quebec to Cornwall, Ontario was
approved by the National Transportation Agency for abandonment
on December 27 of this year.
The CP Chalk River subdivision from Smiths Falls to Pembroke
is scheduled for abandonment on November 19 next, as are the CP
Chalk River and North Bay subdivisions from Petawawa to
Mattawa, Ontario. A segment of the CN Chatham subdivision
between Bloomfield and Tucumseh, Ontario is to be abandoned on
July 14, 1996. Finally, the agency has ordered CN to abandon the
segment of the Newmarket subdivision between Barry and
Longford, Ontario on September 21 next year.
It should be noted that VIA has already expressed interest in
acquiring the Chatham subdivision from CN, and the Ontario
government has held and is holding discussions with CN regarding
the Newmarket subdivision.
16220
As is clear even from the wording of the motion, Parliament
has delegated the responsibility for regulating rail line
abandonments and conveyance to the National Transportation
Agency in accordance with the provisions of the National
Transportation Act, 1987. Briefly, the agency's powers under the
act extend to the receiving and processing of abandonment
applications. The criteria for reaching an abandonment decision
are set out in the act. Any line abandonment application results
in an abandonment order if there is no opposition to that
abandonment.
However, if there is opposition expressed by anyone, the agency
must publish the actual losses incurred from the operation of the
line. Based on traffic and financial information provided by the
railways and evidence submitted by intervenors in writing or at
public hearings, it must make a determination as to whether
operation of the line is economic or uneconomic.
If the agency finds the line is economic, the application is
dismissed. Where the agency finds the line is uneconomic it is then
required to make a further determination as to whether there is any
reasonable probability that it could become economic in the
foreseeable future. If not, the agency must order abandonment. If
yes, the agency must order continuation of operations over the line
if it is in the public interest.
For lines ordered continued in the public interest, the agency is
required to reconsider the abandonment application at least once
every three years. The agency is given some discretion in fixing
abandonment dates to not less that 30 days or not more than one
year after the date of an abandonment order. If VIA operates over
the line the abandonment date is fixed at one year after the date of
the order.
The governor in council has powers under the abandonment
provisions to postpone the date of abandonment if certain criteria
can be satisfied. This is in addition to powers accorded under
section 64, whereby the governor in council can rescind or vary any
agency order, decision, rule or regulation.
(1155)
As members may have noticed neither the agency, the minister
nor the governor in council has power to issue orders to the
railways with respect to what properties they should put up for sale
and when they should do so. It has always been possible for other
governments, as my colleague from Rainy River said, to take an
active role in promoting the sale of a line, or even to purchase the
line itself.
No other business sector or mode of transportation is subject to
such strict regulation of exit as has been imposed on the railway
industry. With the enactment of the Canada Transportation Act, the
government hopes to place the responsibility for rail rationalization
where it belongs, with the railway companies.
The decision to withdraw from a certain segment of business is a
commercial decision and does not justify government intervention.
For example, if a trucking firm decides it no longer wants to serve a
particular city because it is losing money, it simply stops going
there. Why should a railway company not have the same freedom?
If a grocery chain decides it wants to close a store at a particular
location and possibly open one at a more profitable location, the
government does not interfere. Why should that same government
prevent a railway company from doing the same thing? This
government does not exist to tell competing businesses such as
transportation companies how to conduct their business.
It is clear there is no overriding reason why the government
cannot comply with the member's Motion 494. The member will
find that the advanced publicity regarding railway rationalization
plans required under the Canada Transportation Act fulfils the
general intent of his motion.
I appreciate the member's interest in this important topic. We are
at a stage where we are moving from one railway regime to
another. There are difficulties inevitably involved with that
transition.
The decisions made are very important indeed. To that extent I
greatly appreciate the member's interest. However, I argue that his
concerns are well met under the existing legislation.
[Translation]
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, as no other hon. member wishes
to speak, I recognize the hon. member for
Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans on debate. There are two or
three minutes remaining.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to use the time
remaining in the debate on this motion, pursuant to our Standing
Orders.
I would like to correct something my hon. colleague from
Kootenay West-Revelstoke, who sits with me on the Standing
Committee on Transport, said in his remarks.
He indicated earlier, in summarizing the motion to some extent,
that the usefulness of such a motion is unclear, since Bill C-101
will do what the hon. member is asking for. I think he should have
read the motion and listened to what was being said. He would have
realized that the motion in question is to ensure-not in a distant
future; Bill C-101 has not yet been passed-that railways lines
recently slated for abandonment will be covered by the provisions
contained in Bill C-101, once passed. Again, my colleague from
Kootenay misconstrued my meaning.
16221
Also, the hon. member of the Reform Party complained again
about his party not having become the official opposition yet. I
would like to inform the Reformers, through you, that if the Bloc
Quebecois is the official opposition, it is neither to please the
Liberal Party, nor to annoy the Reform Party. British
parliamentary tradition has it that the largest minority group in
the House of Commons forms the official opposition. We never
asked to be the official opposition. It is just the way it is and shall
continue to be, since we have decided to continue sitting in this
Parliament to unmask the Liberals.
(1200)
A common thread goes through the whole federal transportation
reform: the government intends to shift infrastructure costs onto
municipalities, RCMs or the Quebec government, while at the
same time maintaining control and keeping corresponding
revenues. In fact, these so-called improved management objectives
hide a sucker's deal.
The defence of Quebec's interests is no longer tied exclusively to
fruitless objections or demonstration too often ignored. It is now
predicated on Quebecers taking the transportation issue into their
own hands to ensure their future and the future of Quebec
businesses and regions whose development depends on
transportation.
Only by becoming sovereign will we be able to put in place an
integrated transportation policy, in which our local and public
sector partners will be the first to gain from a unified transportation
role within Quebec, combined with a partnership with our
Canadian neighbours and NAFTA allies.
We, members of the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, will
keep on repeating this as long as it takes in this House.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the consideration
of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to
Standing Order 96(1), this item is dropped from the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
16221
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from November 2 consideration of the
motion 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; and of the amendment.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-95, legislation
which will establish the Department of Health.
Two weeks ago I spoke on another piece of legislation. I
reminded the House and particularly our friends from Quebec of
the desire of my constituents for a united and strong Canada. With
the end of the referendum that desire still continues. The people of
Guelph-Wellington, all crusaders for Canada will always support
Canada first. We have a strong attachment to this great country. We
celebrate the privilege of being Canadian and we thank the people
of Quebec for saying no to separation.
Over the past several weeks Canadians have heard much of the
word change. We have before us a bill which changes the name of
the Department of Health. That, as was said by the hon. Minister of
Health, is the simplest part of this legislation. Within the bill there
is a new focus. Bill C-95 contains a new vision of the future that
promises to make improvements in what is already the best
national health system in the world.
The people of Guelph-Wellington want to give a clear message
to Parliament. We want our health system preserved. We reject
those who want to dismantle what we have built in favour of a
system that judges patients on how much money they have rather
than how sick they are.
We recognize the need to respond to areas of concern, but we
will not compromise the protection that is given to each of us by
the Canada Health Act. This act declares that the health aspects of
social well-being are the responsibility of the Department of
Health.
We all know that we were elected to assist the well-being of our
constituents and also of every single Canadian. It is the obligation
of the government in every department and by every single
member of the House to ensure the well-being of the people who
have entrusted us with all of their confidence. The people of
Guelph-Wellington have elected me to be a member of a
government that is tempered with compassion, motivated by care
and strengthened through its ability to make Canada a better place
to live.
Our health care system is one of the values which makes Canada
the best place in the world in which to live. Whether Canadians
reside in Guelph, Ontario, Drummondville, Quebec, or St. John's,
Newfoundland, they know they can depend on a federal
government that is determined to protect the fabric of their health
care system.
(1205 )
This legislation clearly acknowledges the responsibility of the
Department of Health to care for the social well-being of my
constituents and the people of every single region throughout
Canada. Through this legislation we are acknowledging that there
is more to health than health care. Health means the complete state
of physical, mental and social well-being.
The people of Guelph-Wellington are fortunate to have quality
health care providers who work for the benefit of our community.
Organizations like the Victorian Order of Nurses, Homewood
Health Centre, St. John Ambulance Association and the Welling-
16222
ton-Dufferin-Guelph Health Unit work together to provide
assistance, plan health services, give information and support the
people of my community.
While Guelph-Wellington welcomes change, our people do not
want an end to the government's commitment to the long tradition
of ensuring health protection for every single Canadian. Ten years
ago the Canada Health Act was debated and passed without any
member voting against it in this House. Those were the days when
the opposition parties joined the government in support of every
Canadian regardless of their income.
The Canada Health Act contains five principles: public
administration; comprehensiveness; universality; portability; and
accessibility. This act was the result of the efforts of strong
ministers of health including Hon. Allan MacEachen; the father of
the current Minister of Finance, Hon. Paul Martin Sr.; Hon. Marc
Lalonde; and Hon. Monique Bégin. They were supported by
Canadians in their quest for a health care system that offers care
and protection. They were supported by opposition members who
defended the rights of all Canadians, Canadians who deserve
members of Parliament who wish to preserve our health care
system rather than to destroy it.
I mentioned organizations that work in my community to
preserve quality health care. These are joined by hundreds of
individuals working alone or through various agencies in building a
growing awareness of the importance of nutrition, stress
management, physical fitness, safety in the workplace, and the
environment.
We are fortunate in Guelph-Wellington because on top of
quality care institutions like the Guelph General Hospital and St.
Joseph's Hospital and Home, there are people who care. These
people deal not only with cures but with prevention. They realize
that health prevention is the real health care revolution in this
country.
My own family has been blessed with family doctors like Allan
Simpson who was there when my children were born and has cared
for them ever since. Anne Simpson, his wife, has also been a nurse
and caregiver in our community. Without people such as them our
health care system would not be the best in the world.
Our government is determined to save, sustain and improve
Canada's health care system. We will continue to fight against
those who fail to recognize that health care weaves the fabric of our
very nation.
As part of the promises that we have kept since our election, the
Prime Minister has initiated the National Forum on Health and has
taken a real leadership role in finding solutions to the difficult
questions facing all of us. The Prime Minister and Minister of
Health are to be congratulated for this effort.
The National Forum on Health is asking: Are we getting the best
results from our expenditures? Should we be spending more in
some areas and less in other areas? Are we taking full advantage of
new opportunities in the health field? How can we learn from
experiences within Canada and from other countries?
These are important questions which deserve our time and our
consideration. Canadians must dialogue about what our health
system should look like over the longer term. We must develop a
vision of the future. When I discussed priorities for federal
spending with my constituents prior to the last federal budget, they
told me that health care must remain a priority in Canada. In fact
most of the people in Guelph-Wellington who responded to a
questionnaire that I sent out clearly stated that health care should
not be cut in any way. They are concerned about abuses. They are
anxious to find solutions to what is wrong with our health care
system but they absolutely reject the Reform Party's vision for
health care in our community.
(1210)
As in everything else we do, we want to work on a solution that
will make our country better. We cannot accept the doom and
gloom that is so often embraced by the third party in this House.
We know there are challenges to making these improvements, but
the people of Guelph-Wellington welcome these challenges
because we want to make our health care system work for our
children and our grandchildren.
I am pleased that one of the tasks of the national forum is to
document case histories of health care approaches that have
succeeded in improving the health of the population. I look forward
to the policy recommendations that will be made in this area. The
forum has taken the Guelph-Wellington approach to problems:
build on successes, learn from mistakes and identify priorities.
Health is more than health care. There are many aspects of life
and lifestyle that go toward making people healthy. As a
government we must continue to rebuild our society to make it
healthier. How can we do this? We can provide employment to
those unemployed, give hope to Canadians who feel a sense of
abandonment. We can provide a strong social support network for
our Canadian family. We can build a better education system, find
more agreeable working conditions for our workers, free the
environment from pollutants and rid ourselves from unsafe
products that contribute to an unhealthy environment. Health care
means all facets of our society.
Each Canadian is also responsible for his or her own well-being.
Personal health practices which include a positive outlook help
reduce the risk of heart disease, diabetes and cancer. I have
encouraged my constituents to work with the many organizations in
16223
Guelph and Wellington county that promote, educate, assist and
support my constituents who suffer from epilepsy, cancer, the
effects of a stroke, and cystic fibrosis to name but a few. In
Guelph-Wellington we believe that by supporting each other we
can build a better community and a better Canada.
The government continues to look at positive ways to improve
the health care of our country. I wish to take a few seconds to speak
about the prenatal nutrition program which was promised in the red
book and implemented by Health Canada in July 1994.
We know that prenatal and childhood health experiences will
affect us throughout our lives. Low weight at birth is a problem for
the growing child and in some cases contributes to ill health in
adults and sometimes premature death. There is also increasing
evidence that the way children are cared for at an early age
influences their coping skills and health for the rest of their lives.
We also know that it is possible to reverse some of the ill effects
and positively influence later health and well-being by intervening
with supplementary and enrichment programs at critical stages in
the development of children and youth.
The prenatal nutrition program is providing $66.4 million over
four years to set up or expand prenatal nutrition programs for low
income expectant mothers. This is an example of a positive
contribution of government for the well-being of our future. As a
mother of three, I know how precious children are. I worked with
many children through my efforts at the Wellington County Board
of Education. Preventive health, positive lifestyle promotion and
health education are going to contribute to bettering the health of
our children and saving valuable health care dollars in the future.
Our health care system is probably regarded as one of the finest
in the world and this is no exaggeration. At a time when Canadians
are reflecting on what makes us so great, we need only to look at
our health care system as an example of a country that truly works.
True, there are ways that we can improve our health care system.
It is not perfect, but it works and it works well. It ensures that the
poorest of our citizens receive help when they are most in need. It
ensures that our seniors need not sell their homes in the event of a
lengthy illness. More important, it ensures that the people of
Guelph-Wellington and those in all parts of Canada can
concentrate on getting better when they are sick, free from the
worry of who will pay for their health care. That is the kind of
protection needed and wanted by a vast majority of Canadians.
(1215)
Many Canadians deserve credit for our health care system.
Those who in the past had a vision of caring led the way. Volunteers
throughout communities such as Guelph-Wellington ensure that
people are cared for and educated about prevention programs.
Health care professionals have the responsibility for providing care
which has become extremely complex and extremely demanding.
Advancements in health care have meant an explosion of
medical knowledge and information involving all kinds of
advances in equipment and procedures. The front line workers are
there first to care for the sick and their families. They feed us, give
us medicine and often are there to care for us when we die.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to pay tribute to the
dedicated physicians, surgeons, nurses, attendants, paramedics,
researchers and administrators who, along with many associates,
have built for Canadians a health care system which is the envy of
the world.
I saw them care for my mother and I see them in their dedicated
work when I visit hospitals and nursing homes throughout
Guelph-Wellington. This past week they cared for my
father-in-law who was struck down with a heart attack. They are
wonderful people and we are lucky to have them.
We have a good health care system. We are facing new realities
and we are confronted by old problems but I am confident that the
foundations are sound. I know the people of Guelph-Wellington
support legislation which promotes the well-being of every
Canadian. I know they do not want a society in which the poor, the
elderly and those less fortunate cannot get quality health care.
We in Guelph-Wellington are proud of Canada. We are proud
of our health care system. There are those in the House who may
wish to erode the principles of medicare, but in
Guelph-Wellington we refuse to put a price on our health care
system. To do so is to ignore our past and to let down our future.
We accept the challenges ahead. We want to build on the principles
of the Canada Health Act.
Later this month I will meet with members of the Wellington
County Medical Society, as I meet with concerned constituents
every week who have asked me to protect their health care system.
I will tell the members of the society we stand with them and we
will not abandon health care in Canada. This is why this legislation
needs our support.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Wellington told us about the goodwill gestures made
by her constituents towards Quebec. I hope that she and her
constituents are sincere. However, the fact is that, according to a
recent poll, only 30 per cent of Canadians outside Quebec agree
that constitutional changes should be made, while two thirds of
Quebecers are in favour of such changes. Today's reality is very
different from the show of love witnessed before the referendum.
My question relates to the hon. member's comments to the effect
that we must preserve Canada's health care system. How will we
preserve that system, given that the federal government has been
cutting for years in the transfers to the provinces, and that these
cuts will likely be even greater following the next federal budget?
How does the hon. member reconcile the preservation of Canada's
health care system with the drastic cuts being made by the federal
government?
16224
(1220 )
[English]
Mrs. Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, I will address the first
comment by my colleague. When I spoke we did make eye contact.
He asked if I was sincere about Quebec's staying in Canada. I have
never been more sincere about anything in my life.
There are many Guelph-Wellington residents who want
Quebec to stay in Canada. They joined in the rally. They signed a
petition last year stating that fact. They care. They know that united
we stand and divided we do fall. We truly do want Quebec as a part
of Canada. We will work with Quebec and all provinces to make
everything we do stronger and better.
This brings me to the health care issue we were talking about
earlier. The question my hon. colleague put to me is about
maintenance if transfer payments decrease. As we know, in this
time of fiscal restraint all money is tight. We all have deficits,
including provinces like Quebec which has a huge deficit. We all
know that. We know we have to be protectors of health care. I
believe Bloc members are protectors of health care. I also believe
they know that in order to protect it, being a part of Canada will
give them a much better opportunity. It will be preserved and it will
be much stronger.
When we talk about preserving health care, we have to look at
new methods. We have to look at other countries. They do some
things well. We also know, as the Prime Minister has stated many
times, our health care is the envy of the world.
Last week I met with Ralph Nader from the United States. He
told us horrific stories about what is going on there with the health
care system. He warned us to be very careful and ever vigilant not
to move to the right, not to move with the Reform and look at a two
tiered system. He warned us that would be the end of our health
care system.
I call on all members in the House to stand with us and with the
health care professionals who have done a wonderful job in our
communities to preserve our health care.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
ask the hon. member to look at the medicare system or the health
insurance program and one of the five principles, accessibility.
Accessibility tends to conjure a cost factor, that everyone is
equal from a cost point of view. However, I would like to bring up
two or three other points. The first is transportation, those in the
north getting to the services. If anyone breaks a leg in the city, he or
she calls an ambulance and goes to the hospital. However, the same
kind of accessibility is not that readily available in the north. That
is one aspect of accessibility.
The second is waiting lists. We are looking at health from a
preventive point of view, a stitch in time saves nine kind of thing,
but we have horrendous waiting lists. It deters accessibility if one
has to wait to have a lump examined or whatever, something along
that line.
The third point is accessibility of services. Should we provide all
services to all people in all areas? We can get into hospital debates
of whether there should be heart surgery in every hospital, every
community hospital, or kidney machines, these kinds of things
which are not economically feasible.
Therefore from the accessibility point of view, which everyone
tends to zero in on, cost and the availability of the individual's
economic position for accessibility, could you address the other
three or four points?
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure the member meant to say
``would the member address the issues''.
Mrs. Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased about the three
points my hon. colleague brought up. People in the north not being
able to access services as quickly is an important factor. We have to
always be vigilant on that in our decision making. We should not
look only at the cities or the large centres, which is convenient and
easier. We must always be thinking about our constituents in the far
north or the far south, wherever that may be.
(1225)
The issue of waiting lists is also an absolutely valid point.
Wherever we can we have to be constantly monitoring, constantly
rechecking, constantly evaluating. What can we do better? I
support the hon. member in bringing up these things because only
through evaluating what we do now can we get better.
Regarding services in every hospital, I do not know that every
service has to be available in every hospital. There are centres with
several hospitals. From an economical point of view we may have
to look at certain services in one hospital and others located in a
hospital five kilometres away, perhaps heart and kidney machines
or whatever.
I am in full concurrence with the three points the member
brought up. Again I call on every member in the Chamber to keep
looking at the points my colleague brought up. How do we make it
better? How do we improve our health care? How do we save lives?
How do we make a better quality of life in Canada?
We will do that not simply by feeding money into the system but
by priorizing and by being very careful to hone our knowledge, to
talk to other countries, doctors, nurses and caregivers who can tell
us what we should be doing.
16225
We have to make a call to all members that we need universal
health care. We cannot start to erode this. I firmly believe in this
principle.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, beyond
the nice rhetoric on Canada's health care system, the real purpose
of this bill is to confirm and expand the self-proclaimed federal
mandate in the health sector, a sector which clearly falls under
provincial jurisdiction and which is clearly Quebec's
responsibility.
I want to draw your attention to the amendments, the additions to
that act. Paragraph 4(2)(a) reads:
(2) Without restricting the generality of subsection (1), the Minister's
powers, duties and functions relating to health include the following matters:
(a) the promotion and preservation of the physical, mental and social
well-being of the people of Canada;
Paragraph 4(2)(
b), which was not there before, reads:
(b) the protection of the people of Canada against risks to health and the
spreading of diseases;
We are talking about an expanded mandate regarding prevention.
Incidentally, the former act included a section on the protection of
the social well-being. That provision is no longer there. It has
probably become a responsibility of the Minister for Human
Resources Development, who will call it something else.
There is a federal will to take over the provinces'
responsibilities-I will refer to Quebec throughout my speech; the
other provinces can use a different approach if they wish-in fields
which not only clearly fall under provincial jurisdiction-we will
not discuss jurisdiction for the sake of jurisdiction-but in which
only Quebec can work efficiently, because Quebec alone can
implement an integrated policy.
(1230)
As for amendment (b)
b) the protection of the people of Canada against risks and the spreading of
diseases;
I find that this is evidence of incredible gall on the part of the
government after the disaster-the word is not even strong
enough-the horror of the tainted blood problem. There was a hue
and a cry in that connection to identify those who were to blame for
the tainted blood, and everybody seemed to be responsible except
the department. And now this is the responsibility we want to
broaden here to include risks to health.
Risks to health are so closely linked to general conditions of
poverty, sanitation, access to healthy accommodation, education,
life, organization of life that one wonders how, in what appears
otherwise to be merely a technical bill, the department's mandate
could be made that broad.
Either there is a need felt in the federal government, in Canada,
to assign itself responsibilities it is not able to meet because they
affect people, or there is an inability to admit that the exercise of
those responsibilities falling strictly within federal jurisdiction has
been a lamentable failure. And I am not referring only to the
budget. I could also address transportation policies,
communications policies, even, recently, international policies
with the disgraceful events surrounding the visit of the Chinese
Premier.
It is, nevertheless, dangerous to lead citizens to believe that one
is responsible for preventing risks to health when, in reality, one
does not and cannot have the means to do so. To really have the
means would require taking over the provinces' place. So, far from
putting an end to duplication and overlap, the bill is typical of the
inefficiency that exists in areas where there is the most crying need
at this time, when resources are increasingly scarce.
In reality, it is far more important to ask who is responsible than
to ask who is competent, for this reaches people more directly.
When talk is of competency, in reality the term that ought to be
used is responsibility.
Quebec is the one with responsibility, but not with the means
because, as the Minister of Health has pointed out, since 1982-83,
eight billion dollars have been cut from health alone, money which
represented firm commitments to supposedly allow establishment
of the health and social services system in Quebec at a time
when-not because money was any more plentiful in Ottawa than
in Quebec-there was an extraordinary central concentration of tax
dollars. The original reason for this had been financing the Second
World War, and that concentration suited to a T all of the senior
public servants and politicians who had worked to get decisions on
economic and social policies centred in Ottawa, with the provinces
only as subcontractors.
(1235)
This policy was rejected unanimously in Quebec, by all parties.
The money that was collected and is still being collected,
something which Duplessis, yes Duplessis, tried to get around
when he decided Quebec would have its own tax collection system,
the federal government used this money so it could determine the
direction, development and control of economic and social
policies, instead of the Government of Quebec.
This bill confirms clearly and unreservedly the government's
policy of overlap and duplication and the irresponsibility we saw in
the tainted blood scandal, for instance.
The federal government takes credit for introducing the health
care system, as though it would never have happened otherwise. I
will not get into the history of this policy which, although its
origins go back to Saskatchewan, became a Canadian policy. A
respected author on the subject, Thomas Duperré, said in 1987
16226
before the commission of inquiry on health and social services in
Quebec that establishing federal programs merely shifted to the
federal level a debate that had already started at the provincial level
and would have led to the same results over the same period of
time, give or take a few months or a few years.
Quebec Health Minister Jean Rochon is, as everyone knows, an
expert on these issues. He was involved in the work of the
Castonguay-Neveu Commission and later chaired the commission
that started its sittings in 1985 and developed the policies of both
the previous and present government. So this is not a partisan
position, anything but. According to Mr. Rochon, the Canadian
health system is a myth. The truth is, we had developed a health
and social services system, despite the fact that the federal
government centralized its control over resources while ignoring
exclusive provincial jurisdiction in this area as conferred under the
constitution of the Canadian confederation.
The minister went on to quote the Quebec Minister of Social
Affairs and Welfare René Lévesque. At the federal-provincial
conference on poverty in 1965, Lévesque, federalist minister in a
Liberal government in Quebec, said that it had become imperative
to establish a genuine economic and social policy. This policy
should be integrated, flexible in its mechanisms and include a
social security system centred on the family and based on the right
to assistance on the basis of need.
The same sentence, with few changes, could be used to express
the same urgency voiced by sovereignists quite recently.Mr. Lévesque went on to say that for the sake of efficiency and on
constitutional grounds, the Quebec government alone could and
should, within its own territory, design and implement such a
policy. Quebec could not let the Government of Canada assume
this responsibility. Quebec did not, however, exclude
interprovincial co-operation and mutual consultation.
(1240)
He also said that the social and economic development policy
they had formulated would create an integrated social policy,
regional development policy, manpower policy, health policy,
housing policy and job training policy.
Fourth, the federalist minister said that the general policy, while
he did not necessarily condemn it, did not necessarily correspond,
in terms of its spirit and terms of application, to one the
Government of Canada might opt for. The people of Quebec would
enjoy at least as many if not more benefits than other Canadians
might.
The central government's repeated interference, expanding into
preventive medicine, is an affront to the intelligence of the history
of the past 30 years. It is compromising, in a way-and here I am
talking of Canada outside Quebec-and it compromises, it seems
to me, a now necessary reorganization. Instead of decentralizing,
the federal government is busy reaffirming ever more resoundingly
its responsibility for all areas of economic and social development.
Through cuts and the transfer of the deficit, it is, moreover,
usurping the ability of the poorest provinces, at least, to replace
them.
This is a historic moment in the history of Quebec and of
Canada. It is not without some emotion that we view these
bills-we will be debating Bill C-96 this afternoon or tomorrow
and the human resources investment fund and unemployment in the
days and weeks to come-that we note that the thinking behind all
these bills is one of increasing centralization.
It is an approach, as the Canada social transfer demonstrated in
the budget, whereby the only thing transferred to Quebec is the
deficit. We are moved by the fact of having to say that the central
government wants to take over protecting the public against health
risks, when we know the extent to which poverty affects health
significantly. We know that centralized and centralizing policies
are not going to provide us in Quebec with the tools we need to
fight unemployment, poverty and with poor health at the more
disadvantaged levels of society.
(1245)
We will continue to express the thoughts of the large majority of
our fellow Quebecers. Even those who voted no, know that,
through their municipal governments, their social groups and their
Government of Quebec, closest to them, and the most effective
integrator, they will not get to heaven, but at least they will have the
assurance that every effort was made to provide equality for all in
Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
intently to the comments of the member for Mercier, as I always
do. I am always very interested in her deep understanding of social
issues.
As I listened to her speech, it ran across my mind what she was
talking about were communicable diseases. I wondered whether
she thought diseases like AIDS or other diseases knew national
boundaries. Are specific diseases that could possibly occur in
Quebec unique to the borders or indigenous to the borders of
Quebec, or are they diseases that can occur throughout the country
and indeed throughout the world?
When we are talking about research in diseases and
communicable diseases it seems to me that as a country we need to
consolidate our work in these areas to try to find solutions rather
than be fragmented and have separate research areas throughout the
country.
16227
Next is the whole aspect of governments being closer to the
people. We have talked a lot in the House about the issue. I have
often wondered if it is psychological talk. We look at a map and
we see Ottawa and we see Quebec City. However, what does it
mean to someone in Chicoutimi, Arvida or other places in Quebec
to get government services closer to the people?
I know in my province, for instance in the area of education, we
say that it should be close to the people. The reality is our education
system is run out of Toronto. It is not any closer to the people than
if it were in Ottawa. I suspect this is true in Quebec as well. The
actual government getting into the lives of people on the streets of
those communities is not any more well developed from Quebec
City than it is from Ottawa.
An issue that really concerns me about Quebec and its economy
is the over-preponderance of provincial debt in that province. Also
there is the preponderance of the province of Quebec to borrow,
incidentally outside its borders. Some 54 per cent of Quebec's debt
is funded outside Canada with foreigners. The referendum actually
required the Government of Quebec to borrow $35 million from
foreigners to ask its people if they wanted to be an independent
country. It seems a little absurd, quite frankly.
Could the member address some of these issues but mainly the
whole issue about how we are to get government closer to the
people? The federal government, for instance, pays old pension
cheques and the Canada pension plan. It deals directly with people.
The Canadian employment services are right in our communities.
They are the federal government but they are not in Ottawa. They
are right in our communities and are dealing with community
problems. I ask her whether some of this stuff is psychological.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Mercier will have
as much time to answer as her colleague had to put his question.
Mrs. Lalonde: I have more time, Mr. Speaker? I will be brief,
because the hon. member took a lot up of time asking his question.
The Deputy Speaker: I said that the hon. member would have as
much time as the member who asked the question.
(1250)
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned health risks, and AIDS
is not the only one. But for the sake of example, let us take the
tainted blood issue. Do you think that it was any comfort to
Quebecers to know that the so-called responsibility was being
assumed nationally? It is important to know.
Second, our hon. colleague seems to be telling us that, in Canada
in general, people may feel it is quite normal for the central
government to try to be the one that is the closest to the people. But
in Quebec, it is not so. René Lévesque himself said: ``We have
nothing to prove''. We are a people and a nation, and we know that
without one being necessarily better than the other, social,
economic, cultural and political organization varies from one
nation to another. That is what we are asking for with regard to
health as well, and if I say so, it is because I know that I am
speaking on behalf of the vast majority of Quebecers.
As for the debt, we think that when the debt is high, it is essential
that we be the ones to make the choices, as hard as they may be, and
also that we concentrate our resources in areas where a structuring
effect can be expected, which is not the case at present in the
federal system. Employment centers are indeed a case in point. We
have been fighting unanimously for years with ineffective weapons
in Quebec to get back control over manpower training, because we
know that manpower training is an essential economic
development tool.
[English]
Mr. Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon.
member a question about education in the province of Quebec, an
area that has always interested me.
Education, as the hon. member knows, is exclusively a
provincial jurisdiction. Over the years Quebec has had complete
control of it. If it was so important and useful in such a supreme
system to have exclusive jurisdiction in this area and if it was better
for the people, why is the dropout rate in Quebec one of the highest
in Canada?
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent question, and I
am convinced that the drop out rate is a reflection of our whole
social organization. The drop out rate has something to do with
poverty. It has something to do with the lack of hope within Quebec
and, if you must know, many people are sovereignists like me and
will continue to pursue sovereignty because they are convinced that
this is the only way to give people hope and make them drop back
in.
While there are technical means to bring young people back to
school, we know that those who drop out do not do so because their
teachers are boring. We know what makes them drop out. We know
that an underprivileged youngster is much more likely to drop out.
[English]
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I rise
to speak in support of Bill C-95, an act to fix the name of the
Department of Health, I am inclined to ask how many hon.
members know that above all it is a department that puts its money
where the greatest need is no matter where in the country.
Counting all Canadians from coast to coast to coast the greatest
health needs are found among the First Nations. For native peoples
life expectancy is seven years lower than the Canadian average.
Newborn die four times as often. Substance abuse is prevalent.
Sickness is more pervasive. Children are most at risk for
malnutrition. For these reasons two out of every three dollars spent
by the Department of Health excluding transfers to provinces go to
enhance native health. More than 2,000 employees of the depart-
16228
ment are in the direct care business, mostly dedicated to helping
Indians on lands reserved for Indians.
At a time when most government programs are being cut back,
the Minister of Health prevailed to secure additional funds for
native health in the recent budget. The government remains
committed to mending the inequities that have persisted far too
long.
(1255)
The growth in expenditure will gradually taper down but lead
time has been provided for native leaders in consultation with the
department to explore alternate approaches to achieving the same
levels of quality care that other Canadians have come to expect as
their right. It is an essential part of Health Canada's mandate to
help First Nations achieve the highest possible standards of health
care. The department is expanding some programs and introducing
others.
Health Canada's building healthy communities strategy is
funded by $243 million over five years to strengthen and expand
existing health programs for native people in areas of critical need,
including solvent abuse, mental health and home care nursing. The
strategy is designed in consultation with First Nations and Inuit
leaders.
Last May the minister announced supplementary funding under
the solvent abuse program for six new permanent treatment centres
to deal with solvent abuse among First Nations and Inuit people.
The centres are located in northern B.C., Saskatchewan, Manitoba,
Ontario, southern Ontario and Quebec.
Last May the minister also announced the aboriginal head start
aimed at helping disadvantaged children overcome some of
poverty's life-drag effects. As it evolves it will provide more and
more children with a positive self-image, a desire for learning, and
an opportunity to develop social, emotional, physical and learning
skills.
Aboriginal people have told us there is a need for programs for
young children and families that reflect the culture and experience
of their communities. Together with Canada's aboriginal
community we have embarked on a mission that will support the
need. All Canadians can be proud of the program because its design
was developed with input from aboriginal people in both urban and
northern communities across the country.
Aboriginal head start represents a made in Canada approach that
can begin to address the unique needs of First Nations, Metis and
Inuit preschool children and their families. There is ample
evidence of the health and educational differences that exist
between the Indian, Inuit and Metis people when compared with
other Canadians. We know that by working together we can better
deal with these problems.
Over half Canada's aboriginal population does not live on
reserves and this population is very young. While 7 per cent of
Canada's total population is under four years of age, 13 per cent of
the aboriginal population is under four, nearly twice as high.
Studies of head start programs have proven that investing in young
children is one of the best investments society can make. Head start
programs for young children can have a profound and positive
effect on their lives.
The elders tell us that every child has his or her own gift and that
it is the responsibility of the community to identify that gift,
nurture it and ensure that each child is aware of how special she or
he is and that she or he is a gift from the creator. This traditional
belief is a natural starting point for a healthy beginning in life.
Aboriginal head start is similar to a community based early
intervention program developed in the United States more than 30
years ago. Those who are familiar with the head start program will
be pleased to know that while we will build on their many
successes we hope to improve on what they have done.
An important recommendation from our talks with aboriginal
people was to make the program flexible. Doing so allows the
uniqueness of the First Nations, Metis and Inuit communities to be
respected. Aboriginal head start is not complicated and it will have
little red tape. It focuses on local non-profit organizations
controlled and administered by aboriginal people who see the
parent as the natural advocate of the child. Grandparents and elders
play a significant role in aboriginal head start projects. Young
aboriginal children will benefit from their wisdom and knowledge
of tradition. All aboriginal head start projects will have strong
parental involvement.
Aboriginal head start will be guided in each region by a
committee comprised of aboriginal people who have been
nominated by their peers and bring with them an appreciation and
understanding of aboriginal cultures, values, traditions, experience
and educational expertise. They will assist in identifying priority
sites and selecting projects.
As well, a national aboriginal head start committee is being
established to ensure the initiative has support and strength across
Canada. Its members will be chosen because they have a broad
understanding of early childhood development.
(1300)
It is clear to the federal government that programs for aboriginal
people, designed and delivered by it, are more successful than
those delivered by outside agencies. I have no doubt that aborigi-
16229
nal head start committees and local head start projects will
succeed.
We have placed our investment and trust at the community level
because we believe one of the ultimate goals of this initiative is to
help parents and children build better futures for themselves. The
Government of Canada will continue to work in strong partnership
with Indian, Inuit, and Metis people in fulfilling the commitments
made in the red book. Through the aboriginal head start program
we are continuing to promote community action and empower
communities by providing the tools and resources to improve
overall economic and social opportunities for children and
families.
Although it was inspired by a community based program of early
intervention and had its start in the U.S. more than 30 years ago,
this head start program is much improved, based on substantial
input from aboriginal people in urban and northern communities.
Aboriginal head start will be flexible, respecting the unique
characteristics of First Nations, Metis, and Inuit people.
Grandparents, elders, and parents will play significant roles and the
program will be guided in each region by a committee of aboriginal
people nominated by their community.
Head start programs for young children have profoundly positive
long term effects. Their impact on aboriginal communities will be
even greater elsewhere because in these communities there are
nearly twice as many children under the age of four, nearly twice as
many in proportion to their share of Canada's population.
One specific program illustrates the care and concern manifest in
this department. Last May, Health Canada was the major sponsor
of the third annual international conference on diabetes and
indigenous peoples, which was held in Winnipeg. Hon. members
may be aware that diabetes is one of the most serious chronic
diseases among aboriginal populations in Canada. Diabetes rates
for natives are from two to five times greater than for Canadians in
general.
Health Canada works in partnership with aboriginal people to
improve knowledge and treatment of diabetes. The department
recognizes what the minister calls the critical role for traditional
aboriginal practices in the healing process. This recognition of the
value of traditional practices is of fundamental importance and
reflects the department's major focus on the native front, which
continues to be transfer of control of programs to First Nations.
Over the years, Health Canada has come to recognize that health
programs designed and delivered within aboriginal communities
are often more successful than those delivered by outside agencies.
Therefore, it now works with First Nations to enhance their control
of health resources. There have been more than 40 health transfer
agreements concluded, involving about 100 First Nations, and the
annual expenditures are more than $43 million. About twice as
many again are under negotiation. Self-administered health care is
one of the powers that will eventually enable First Nations to
achieve self-government.
I have used this occasion to remind hon. members and all
Canadians of the commitment in this department to improving
health and longevity for Canada's first peoples. There remains
much to be done, but I know that our Department of Health,
rechristened and recharged, will reconfirm its dedication to those
most in need.
I am pleased to support this clearing of the deck and positioning
for the future brought about through Bill C-95.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to address a couple of things in the bill. One is that there
is a tendency to think of it as a housekeeping bill because it is a
change of name. There are a couple of reasons for changing name.
First, it can be done because we do not like the present name.
Second, the mandate or the content of the department can be
changed. I would like to suggest that the bill represents a little more
than just changing the name of the department.
I find it a little amusing that we are discussing the creation of the
health department two years into our mandate. I believe we are
going to be doing human resources a little later. Also, through Bill
C-107 we have created the B.C. Treaty Commission approximately
two years after it began functioning.
(1305 )
Getting back to the health department, the fact that it has been up
and running under this mandate for two years gives me a little
concern as to what its mandate actually is. Whether its mandate has
been increased or decreased is the focus of what I am looking at
here.
The Department of Health is a product of the phasing out of the
Department of Health and Welfare and the Department of
Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It is my understanding that most
of the mandate that was the Department of Consumer and
Corporate Affairs went to the Ministry of Industry. I am assuming
that a lot of the welfare aspect of the Department of Health and
Welfare went to the Department of Human Resources
Development.
I am wondering what is left for the Department of Health. When
we talk in our debates about health we tend to zero in on the health
insurance or the medicare component of this department. I would
think there is a lot more to health than that particular aspect. That is
one component of what a good and functioning health department
should be.
16230
If we look at clause 4 of the bill itself, it states that the health
department will promote and preserve the preservation of health
for the people of Canada. I might add that it states it will do that
where it has not been otherwise delegated to other jurisdictions
within the government structure.
The second part expands on that a little more. Paragraph 4.2(a)
refers to the promotion and preservation of the physical, mental,
and social well-being of the people of Canada. I would argue that
the social well-being, as we heard earlier in the debate, involves
such things as housing, jobs, et cetera. It goes into great parameters
from that point of view as to our individual well-being. I would
suggest that possibly that aspect is being removed with the removal
of the welfare component. Consequently, the health department is
in a position of having to collaborate with a number of other
industries in actually addressing some of these concerns.
The physical-mental component of that statement is relatively
easy to address from a health point of view, because one can
certainly look at that within this mandate. However, with the
removal of the welfare component that mandate for health has been
diminished to a point that now we are in more collaboration and
co-operation with the other departments. There is not the same
authority there the department once had.
When we move further down the list as to what the mandate of
this new department will be, in paragraph 4.2(b) it talks about the
protection of the people of Canada against risks to health and the
spreading of diseases. One would tend to think immediately in that
component of communicable diseases and such other diseases that
do not necessarily meet the definition of communicable diseases
such as HIV-AIDS and possibly hepatitis B and C. These are
pandemic kinds of situations. I would hope that a health
department would have a major role in addressing these types of
things that affect the Canadian people.
We have had some experience in the past two years with both
these issues. In my opinion, the response of the government has
been reactive. I am wondering if this is a sign of some weakening
in the department's ability to pick up the reins and lead when these
situations occur.
(1310 )
We go down to paragraph (c), which is ``investigation and
research into public health, including the monitoring of diseases''.
I am not sure if it is the only reference, but I believe it is the only
reference made in the act to research.
In this context, one tends to think of investigation and research,
more studies. We are going to research this, study it. As we all
know, we have done a lot of studies. In some areas the feeling is
that we have done enough studies over the years and it is time to get
into some action.
I also would like to suggest that the research component of
health is very important. It not only should be addressing diseases
that are out there, but we should be looking at where we are going
in the future from a technological point of view and how these
things will affect our health.
I am a little concerned that this is the only reference made to
research. It tends to imply that we would be looking at diseases.
Paragraph (d) states that the health department will establish and
control the safety standards and safety information requirements
for consumer products and safety information requirements for the
products intended for use in the workplace. That is a program
called WHIMS, which is being carried out by the provincial
governments. The federal role in that now tends to deal with a
problem within a company in which they feel the giving out of that
information on their product may violate the marketing aspects of
their product, put them in jeopardy of being duplicated or whatever.
I would suggest that the federal government's role in WHIMS is
minimal now that it has actually been established and
implemented.
Paragraph (e) refers to the protection of public health on
railways, ships, aircraft and other methods of transportation. Here
is a situation I made reference to earlier. The health department is
in a position of not having necessarily authority in these areas but
having to collaborate with other ministries. I suggest that this will
weaken the leadership of this department.
Paragraph (f) moves into the promotion and preservation of
health in public servants and other employees. That stands on its
own. The health department definitely is a major player there.
Then we move into an environmental type of clause,
international, dealing with the United States and others. Now we
have another situation in which I am suggesting health is again in
collaboration with another department, in this case environment,
which means that there has to be a meeting of minds between the
two departments for leadership to evolve in whatever situation has
to be there.
Paragraph (h) refers to the Statistics Act and the collection,
analysis, interpretation, publication, and distribution of
information relating to public health. I would like to say that this
aspect is being well done and has been well done in the past. We
have had experience in our past in which people have been able to
get information about specific things. Having worked in the health
care field before, I know that if one put the effort into obtaining
information one certainly could get it. I suggest that the various
departments in Health Canada, the bureaucratic component, have
been the major bonus in this aspect of things.
16231
We are gathering information and correlating it and then
disseminating it to the people. I have dealt with the health
programs and services branch with Kay Stanley, specifically in
relation to cardiac situations. I must say it has been excellent.
(1315)
Two positive mandates of the health department have come up in
my dialogue so far. One is the education and correlation of
information and the other is public servants' health care.
The last item is the co-operation with provincial authorities with
a view to the co-ordination of efforts made or proposals for
preserving and improving public health. My interpretation of that
is it is the one which addresses medicare or health insurance.
Again, the role has been delegated to the provinces to provide the
service. The federal role is the Canada Health Act and the five
principles thereof which ensure that the provinces meet those five
standards.
Through the amalgamation of departments we have weakened
our health department with respect to giving it the necessary
authority to address a great number of issues. Many other aspects
of the health department, other than the health insurance aspect
which has been transferred to the provinces, are tied up with other
departments. One really does not know who has jurisdiction.
Being the critic for aboriginal concerns I have seen many
studies. We just heard a member speak about programs. There are
numerous studies, such as the EAGLE study which is being done in
collaboration with the environment department. There is a drinking
water study in progress on which the department of health is
collaborating with the department of Indian affairs. As a matter of
fact, with respect to the drinking water project, I believe an
education program has been established.
All of these things are necessary. There is a great concern
regarding the health of our aboriginal people which we should be
addressing. We know that breast cancer is another problem which
we should be addressing. There are many problems which need to
be identified and addressed.
The authority to address these health problems within other
jurisdictions, for example, aboriginal people falling under the
department of Indian affairs, tends to weaken the authority of the
health department. We can get caught up with money, priorities or
other things. My point is that I think it is a weakness.
There is an abundance of money in the health care budget. There
is a tendency to think of that money in relation to the health care
insurance plan. We hear all kinds of dialogue about withholding
transfers to the provinces and cutbacks in services. I realize there is
a formula which is based on a dollar amount per head.
I might suggest that when we start looking at all of the areas in
which health is involved, such as the studies and the various
programs in collaboration with other ministries, possibly some of
that money might be better used on the other side of the health
department which is health insurance and medicare. I realize that
entails changing the formula.
(1320 )
The moneys available in health care for health insurance-and I
do not know what the percentages would be on that through the
whole budget-should be revisited in relation to all the other things
the health department should or could be doing with the dollars it
has but has allocated elsewhere into studies and various individual
programs.
Returning to the reference I made earlier that this bill is creating
the health department, this department has been functioning for
two years. It may support my argument that the department has
been weakened. I hope there is a little more activity coming from
the health department. We have had no legislation to date other
than this bill. Bill C-7 was referred to the health committee but it
was not introduced by the health department to this House.
We had the tobacco situation early last year which again had a
negative effect on the health situation. We have had the blood
tainting and HIV-AIDS situations. We have had the comments
about the transfer payments to the provinces in the west. We have
had TB in the women's prisons and also the assisted suicide issue
arise. There was not really any leadership from the health
department. The medical profession actually expressed the pros
and cons and the ethics of this and the other House undertook the
study on palliative care issues.
I have concerns. We are not just dealing with a name change. I
have concerns about the role of the government. I have great
concerns that it is being diffused.
I have had some discussions with the Canadian Nurses
Association. The association expressed the concern that with the
removal of welfare the department would be restricted in its ability
to address the whole human being which is important. The
approach of health care workers in Canada has changed from an
illness approach to a wellness approach where they must look at the
whole body. There are concerns from the Canadian Nurses
Association on that.
The association is also concerned that the national standards
coming from the department relate specifically, from what we have
heard so far, to the Canada Health Act and the five principles which
relate to the health insurance program.
Those are some of my concerns. I will certainly be supporting
this bill when the vote comes. I am concerned that it is being
diffused. The team leader, the Prime Minister, calls the shots when
16232
it comes to setting up the ministries. I do have concerns that this
department has been extremely weakened.
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the hon. member's
comments, some of which were well thought out. I appreciate her
supporting the bill.
The most important recurring theme I heard the hon. member
refer to was that this new act will weaken the Ministry of Health in
that the Ministry of Health will have to collaborate and co-operate
with other departments. I do not see it that way.
As the hon. member rightly said, health is more than just the
absence of disease. Health has to do with environmental issues. It
has to do with issues relating to poverty and socioeconomic status.
It has to do with issues of public health which has to do with
contagious or transferable diseases.
(1325)
Departments such as environment, Indian affairs and northern
development and human resources development are already in
existence and are already dealing with these issues. What happens
is a duplication of efforts. In the past, programs were going on
within other departments and health would be duplicating some of
them. The idea is that if there had been a concerted effort, then
health and the other department, which in turn deals with its
colleagues at the provincial level, can create a better understanding
of the issue. Then the appropriate department working with health
can set a healthy public policy with regard to those things.
The positive thing about it is that in the past many departments
have always felt that what they did did not impact on health. There
is now a real opportunity here for departments to understand that
health touches every single aspect of our lives. Those departments,
whenever they make policy, can focus on looking at the healthy
public policy component of their policy instead of just focusing on
the other aspects of their policy that did not include health and left
the health components up to health, in which case it was very
diluted. It was more diluted in that case than it would be in this
way.
For example, let us look at the issue of poverty and the transfer
of the welfare component of health and welfare to human resources
development. We know that one of the things that has to do with
poverty has to do with creating opportunity for people for
employment training to become independent contributors to
society. This is already a major part of human resources
development. Therefore, developing human resources is going to
decrease poverty in the long run which will then impact on health.
This gives better focus to all of the departments which will in
turn see that health is an important component of whatever they do
across the spectrum. It also gives the Ministry of Health the ability
to look at developing clear health promotion and disease
prevention guidelines, focusing on research and some of the things
the hon. member spoke about.
Research in terms of disease is not the only component of
research one wants to do. The Medical Research Council is looking
at health promotion research which will lead to the promotion of
positive health status as opposed to just looking at the disease
components.
This gives the Department of Health a better focus on some of
those issues including public health which, as members well know,
means taking healthy public policy with regard to things like
sewers, contagious diseases, quality of drinking water and safety,
as the hon. member mentioned, which is an important part of what
the department does right now. The department will focus on those
issues very clearly and will work in co-operation and collaboration
with the other departments. This will be a learning process with the
other departments to see how what they do impacts on health.
Ms. Bridgman: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's
comments. I also appreciate that progress can be achieved much
more quickly if we work together.
I recognize the validity of ministries getting together and talking
to avoid duplication and channelling their energies in the correct
direction. This just does not apply to health; it can also be applied
to the environment. Environment affects all the ministries as well.
My concern is that somebody somewhere has to have the
authority to take leadership in these situations. When one starts
collaborating to that point, is it a committee decision, a health
decision, or a ministry decision that we are talking about? How
does the priority for recognizing the problem which has been
identified actually come into being?
(1330 )
The authority of the department is diminishing because its role is
becoming more of an associate role or an advisory role to the other
ministries. It is picking up the gauntlet and running with the
program out of its own budget or this type of thing. That is where
my concern is. I have no problem with collaborating. That is
excellent and it is time we got to it.
I do not see any authority in this paper. If we have a health
problem what authority does the department have to put it on the
front burner? That is what I am concerned about.
Ms. Fry: Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. member's
comment. It is like the chicken and the egg syndrome.
According to the member's vision of health it would be a super
ministry encompassing all the ministries that will in turn look to
the Department of Health to make decisions. Obviously that is not
possible but it is an interesting concept.
16233
This is what we have to move to. If we are talking about sharing
jurisdictions and incorporating, we are also educating other
departments so that people do not continue to focus in a narrow
tunnel vision in specific departments on only one component of
what they do. It is better for public health policy if the Ministry
of the Environment recognizes that whatever it does impacts
health, as opposed to the Department of Health constantly saying
that it must do this and that, and so on for every other ministry.
I see it as a positive move as opposed to a negative move.
Ms. Bridgman: Mr. Speaker, it might be the chicken and egg
syndrome, but the concern first came to me with the EAGLE
program. To my understanding that program is being done with the
involvement of an aboriginal group. There is probably a specific
group around the Great Lakes. The program is studying the effects
on aboriginals of the Great Lakes environment. I believe it is being
done in collaboration with Indian affairs.
This collaboration is ongoing. We are studying the effects on
aboriginals of the Great Lakes environment. I am sure it is
affecting other people as well but because it was done in
collaboration with one department we have zeroed in on a specific
group. This is the trend I am seeing. Instead of the effects on
Canadians, we studying the effects on aboriginals because of the
ongoing collaboration. That could get out of hand eventually.
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches-Woodbine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am supporting Bill C-95 because of the important role Health
Canada plays in the life of Canadians. Too often Canadians, and
even some hon. members of the Chamber, do not realize that there
is more to health than the Canada Health Act. Health Canada
supports unique federal roles and responsibilities. The work
undertaken by the department is far reaching and important.
Health Canada not only provides the benefits of universal health
insurance. It also ensures the safety of food, drugs, cosmetics,
medical devices and consumer products. It invests hundreds of
millions of dollars in health research. It monitors disease in
developing pathogens and it conducts a wide variety of health
promotion programs and activities.
Finally, Health Canada administers health services to First
Nations, federal public servants, Canadian civil aviation personnel
and Canadians in need of emergency health and social services in
case of national civil disaster.
The department touches Canadians every day in all aspects of
their lives. Canadians look on their health system with pride. They
have an overwhelming degree of satisfaction with what the
department is doing. They expect governments to work hard to
adapt to changing times and priorities. They understand the need
for cost effectiveness, but they demand the security of a
department concerned with maintaining and improving the health
of all Canadians.
(1335)
The government has recognized that economically
disadvantaged, unemployed or poorly educated Canadians are
more likely to suffer from ill health and to have a lower life
expectancy. Like governments everywhere we will strive to deal
with these problems. We are committed to an equitable health care
system. The vast majority of Canadians are solidly behind the
efforts being made by government, professional groups and other
stakeholders to improve the efficiency of the system.
Canada has a long history of commitment to these principles in
serving a dispersed population in a federal system of government.
We will maintain our commitment to these principles
notwithstanding some difficult economic reality that we, as many
nations of the world, are experiencing at the moment.
Canadians look to Health Canada for reassurance whenever there
are natural or civilian disasters or threats to national health from
chronic diseases such as cancer and tuberculosis or communicable
diseases such as AIDS, HIV or the Ebola virus.
Within Health Canada 6,400 employees work to provide
Canadians with the research data, programs, information and
support they need to make positive lifestyle decisions. The
business of the department is conducted in offices and laboratories,
in cities and on reserves located on sites all across Canada. Just
over half the department's employees work in the national capital
region while the rest work in regional offices, collaborating with
their provincial, territorial and non-government counterparts.
The Canada Health Act is administered by about 25 employees
in Ottawa. The face of Health Canada comprises many names and
many talents. Forty per cent of Health Canada staff are involved in
the area of health protection, keeping Canadians safe from risks to
their health arising from emerging diseases, dangerous products,
the environment or unsafe food or drugs.
Defining, assessing and managing current and emerging health
risks are also among branch responsibilities, along with
maintaining the country's health protection infrastructure. More
than 2,000 employees of Health Canada work in the area of First
Nations health within the medical services branch. It is often
forgotten that two-thirds of the budget of the department, excluding
transfers to provinces, is devoted to native health.
Health Canada provides community health services to status
Indians on reserves and to residents of Yukon through 600 health
facilities across Canada. In order to help First Nations to achieve
the highest possible standards of health care, the department has
undertaken a variety of initiatives. These include the five-year
building health communities strategy and the aboriginal head start
16234
program aimed at children. The latter is a government red book
initiative.
However the department's major focus remains the transfer of
control of programs to First Nations. The first main program of
Health Canada is the health promotion and programs branch
involving some 525 people. They provide support to groups at risk,
including children, families and seniors, and develop programs to
prevent and reduce heart disease, breast cancer and other illnesses.
They also work with and assist Canada's many national voluntary
organizations.
It is not well known that the federal government spends about
$340 million on health research annually. Altogether we estimate
that in Canada we spend about $1.5 billion a year on health
research. This is a very impressive number.
Each of the three program areas has staff in every province and
territory. Not only are offices located in provincial capitals but
members will find Health Canada staff in smaller centres like
Trois-Rivières, Hamilton, Thompson, Port Qu'Appelle, the Sarcee
reserve at Tsuu Pina in northern Alberta, and Prince George.
Most of the remaining thousand or so employees work in the
national capital region managing the department, developing
health policy and legislation, undertaking consultation and
managing essential departmental services. About 250 people work
in the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, the Patented Medicine
Prices Review Board and the Hazardous Materials Information
Review Commission.
Canadians have a strong attachment to their health system and
the federal role in it. They look to the federal government to
provide a viable, well managed national health care system.
According to an Angus Reid poll of March 1995 almost all
Canadians want national standards in health care, with 94 per cent
saying such standards are somewhat or very essential.
(1340)
At a time when so much is changing in Canada and in the world
people need security to cope with change. They expect their
governments to play an important role in that regard by providing
Canadians with the best health care system in the world and by
reassuring them that they will be taken care of if they are sick, that
the products they use are safe and that the most advanced research
goes into the measures Health Canada takes to prevent disease. The
Department of Health does this to earn the trust and confidence of
Canadians.
We have proven over and over again that a publicly administered
health care system is the most effective, most inclusive and most
successful system one in the world. Privatization of the health care
system is a weakening of the system of health care. It only makes
the private corporations wealthier at the expense of those who need
health care and at the expense of accessibility.
This is why I support the bill and I encourage all members of the
House to do so.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
afternoon, we are considering Bill C-95, an act to establish the
Department of Health.
This bill contains a number of disturbing clauses, and the Bloc
members who spoke before me in this debate pointed out that the
provinces will have to pay close attention to how the federal health
minister implements these clauses, because they give the federal
government an opportunity to encroach on an area of provincial
jurisdiction.
I think that our concerns are totally justified; I would like to go
beyond the clauses themselves and look at how the Department of
Health has been positioning itself for some time now.
As hon. members will recall, in the throne speech almost two
years ago, the government announced the national forum on health
with great fanfare. What has happened since then?
I would like to think about this because I think it puts the bill
before us in a special light and allows us to express a number of
reservations with arguments that everyone can understand better.
This forum on health officially started its operations on October
20, 1994, under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister and the
vice-chairmanship of the Minister of Health. The mandate of this
forum is to improve the health of the Canadian people, increase the
effectiveness and efficiency of health care services, and make
recommendations to help the government achieve these goals.
We should point out here that the federal government does not
miss any opportunity to interfere in the area of health. The federal
government therefore decided to participate in the debate and even
to initiate the consulting process to assess the Canadian health
system, despite the fact that this is an area of exclusive provincial
jurisdiction, while setting future priorities in order to improve the
quality of health care.
The federal government is making a lot of claims. As you will
recall, it turned down the request by provinces to participate fully
in the work of the national forum on health. Instead, the Liberals
decided to let the provinces attend the forum but only as observers.
How, I ask you, could the federal government disregard the main
stakeholders in the area of health, namely the provinces? On
September 27, 1994, the current Minister of Labour, who was then
Quebec's Minister of Health, told La Presse: ``The federal
government's conduct does not make any sense. How can they
contemplate reviewing the health care system without the partici-
16235
pation of the provinces, which must provide the services. It is
simply unacceptable''.
(1345)
Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux said, in the other place, on May
31, 1994, that the government was headed in the wrong direction
by overlooking the role of the provinces. She said, and I quote:
``Are the provinces not considered major partners? Why were they
not invited to participate in the forum? Does the leader find it
appropriate for the government to be acting unilaterally on a matter
of provincial responsibility?''
Needless to say that the federal government went ahead with its
national forum on health, in spite of the strong objections of the
key players in the health sector, namely the provinces.
On October 21, 1994, during question period, the Prime Minister
said, and I quote: ``We in Canada cannot afford to lose our health
insurance system because we did not take the time to plan for the
future''.
That statement from the Prime Minister is telling in more ways
than one. First, the federal government sets itself up as keeper and
promoter of the quality of health care services provided to the
public. According to the Prime Minister, it is thanks to the federal
government if the health care system, as it exists, is the pride of
Canadians.
Following a meeting with provincial officials in Victoria, the
health minister said, in a press release: ``The October 15 date is
final. However, I believe we can reach an agreement to end
extra-billing by clinics to cover essential medical services. It was
never my intention to penalize the provinces, but I firmly intend to
preserve and to protect Canada's health care system''.
Meanwhile, the federal government is careful not to mention the
dramatic consequences of its financial withdrawal which, for
Quebec alone, will have resulted in a shortfall of over $8 billion
between 1982-83 and 1994-95. That is a lot of money, considering
that the government claims to be the keeper of health care in
Canada.
The government is also trying to give the impression that it is the
only one able and willing to propose efficient solutions to solve the
thorny issue of funding for our health care system, as it currently
exists. The federal government goes so far as to assume the
responsibility of defining priorities to preserve the future of quality
health care services.
The Prime Minister's statement shows to what degree the federal
government sees itself as the ``great thinker'' regarding Canada's
current and future health care systems, as well as the one which can
ensure that it remains accessible, free and universal.
Let me quote an excerpt from a document on the
federal-provincial perspective prepared by Thomas Duperré on
behalf of Quebec's commission of inquiry on health and social
services: ``By using several programs gradually put in place over
the years, the federal health department tends to give itself overall
responsibility for health and social services, and it does not hesitate
to describe itself as the main architect of the implementation and
smooth operation of Canada's health system. It should be noted
that, for the Canadian government, health services (and, to a lesser
degree, social services) in this country form, to a large extent, a
nationwide system. Indeed, Ottawa sees provincial governments as
mere health care providers, and provincial programs, which never
seem to form a global structure, as mere elements of the national
system. Provinces, and particularly Quebec, sometimes find it hard
to understand the federal government's attitude in the health and
social sector. This is because they forget that, rightly or wrongly,
the central government gives itself a much larger role than the one
provided in the constitution''.
(1350)
Nevertheless, it is obvious that the provinces constitute the ideal
sociopolitical agent for health system reform. According to the
distribution of powers under the 1867 Constitution Act, only the
provinces have the power to create, deliver and administer health
and social services to the public.
Let us look at the example of the various actions undertaken by
the government of Quebec to transform, modify and improve the
health system over the past ten years. Let us think of the Rochon
Commission, which took a critical look at the entire health system
in Quebec. Each component of the system was placed under
scrutiny and a number of groups involved in the health field spoke
before public Commission hearings, in order to make known their
concerns, their anguish, and their suggestions for improving the
irritants inherent to the system.
After this brief review, I hardly need point out in connection with
Bill C-95 that the provinces and Quebec are the ones best placed to
intervene directly and knowledgeably in the system of health care
and services. Who better than the provinces to know what the true
issues are, and what solutions are required, to keep the health
system accessible, universal and free of charge?
The better solution by far would be to hand over to the provinces
all taxes earmarked for health care, allowing them to provide their
populations with appropriate and suitable health services.
Interaction between the provinces would result in agreements to
ensure the delivery of services that, while homogeneous and
equivalent,
16236
were tailored to the specific requirements and means of each
province, Quebec in particular. I shall close on this note,Mr. Speaker. Thank you for your kind attention.
[English]
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
comments.
The hon. member spoke about the health forum. He said the
health forum is encroaching on provincial jurisdictions. The health
forum is a dialogue by Canadians who form the forum and who
were chosen from every province. They have an ongoing dialogue
with Canadians to see Canadians' vision for health system as we
move into the 21st century.
I believe it is appropriate for the health forum to do exactly that
because Canadian medicare is Canadian medicare. It is
pan-provincial. It is a Canadian institution. Eighty-nine per cent of
Canadians from every province agree and support medicare as
something they treasure as a Canadian system of values and as
being completely Canadian in its context.
The provinces deliver services. Nothing in the dialogue the
health forum is having with Canadians should interfere with that.
These are Canadians speaking with Canadians to get a vision of
their health care and reporting back to the Prime Minister on what
they believe in. It is appropriate for the federal government to meet
and speak with the Canadian people. We talk about a bottom up
approach to health care. Everyone agrees we need to know what
people think.
Decisions in health care have always been made between
governments and through discussion among governments in the
health ministers' forum. It is very rare that the people of Canada
get an opportunity to have an ongoing dialogue. This is putting the
health care system into the hands of the people and letting them
describe a vision for Canada as opposed to governments describing
a vision for health care in Canada. I believe this is extremely
appropriate.
Nothing in this interferes with the parallel meetings that occur
constantly between deputy ministers of health in every province
and the deputy minister of health in the federal government, and
between ministers of health of every province and the federal
Minister of Health. They are parallel. They are government to
government. They discuss what governments can do.
(1355)
This is important. Health care is a three-legged stool. That stool
comprises of the consumer, the Canadian public, who uses those
services, the provincial governments which provide, manage and
administer those services, and the federal government which has
been given the mandate under the Canada Health Act to ensure the
five principles of Canadian medicare are kept. One leg of that stool
has been pretty shaky. No one has bothered to talk to that leg for a
long time.
The Prime Minister has said it is important for the people of
Canada to speak about their vision. This is extremely appropriate if
we see Canada as one country.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, you will permit me to disagree
completely with my hon. colleague's remarks.
Health is a provincial matter. If the federal government wants to
keep an eye on all the provinces, it should not go through the
people of the provinces, but through the governments, whose job it
is to administer the system within their province. When you start
short-circuiting the authority of the individual provinces and going
directly to individual citizens, you are short-circuiting a process
that is normal, natural and desirable, because it is practical and
necessary. You mess up the whole thing.
In June 1994, a journalist called me and asked me about the
forum. I said it was window dressing. I say the same thing today,
almost two years after the speech from the throne, this forum has
served absolutely no purpose. We have not made any progress, and
the provinces are increasingly aware that they are being given
responsibilities and deprived of the means to carry them out. This
is both unfair and inefficient, and, in the final analysis, the
provinces will have the last word, because common sense always
prevails.
The Speaker: My dear colleagues, it being two o'clock p.m., we
will now proceed to statements by members.
_____________________________________________
16236
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
past year we watched Canadian veterans return to the Netherlands
to places they had fought and where many of their comrades laid
down their lives in the defence of freedom. These veterans were
greeted as the heroes they are. Dutch children have been taught
about the Canadian sacrifice to liberate their country.
It is imperative for Canadian children to learn those same
lessons. This week is National Veterans' Week. My home province
of Newfoundland has also signed a proclamation declaring this
Remembrance Week, the first province to do so. The flag of
remembrance will be flown outside schools and municipal and
provincial buildings across our province.
These tributes are important. We must take the time to remind
ourselves and to teach our children about the courage and sacrifice
of Canada's veterans.
16237
In wartime and in peacekeeping missions around the world they
have left a legacy of which we can be extremely proud.
* * *
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the latest
information on the practices of the former Airborne Regiment in
Petawawa is distressing. The revelation of more and more
repugnant practices by former members of the Regiment not only
tarnishes the reputation of Canada's armed forces, but indicates
that a significant change must take place within the armed forces.
How could anyone tolerate a celebration of the anniversary of
the massacre of 14 innocent women at l'École polytechnique?
These sordid celebrations are an insult for and an attack on all
women.
I call on the Minister of National Defence to act quickly to put an
end to the unacceptable behaviour of the Canadian armed forces,
which, it would appear, took place with the approval of higher
ranking officers. Women are entitled to a public apology.
* * *
[English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Armed Forces Pensioners/Annuitants Association contracted a
group dental insurance plan, but only under the proviso that
monthly premiums be deducted at source.
The request to do so went to Treasury Board in October 1993.
Only after many follow-up inquiries did the minister, almost two
years later, finally agree to consider the pension deductions.
However, planned implementation could be no sooner than the
summer of 1996 and at an estimated cost of ``no less than
$100,000'' for system development.
Treasury Board already processes payroll deductions for income
tax, union dues, United Way campaigns, Canada savings bonds and
other insurance plans. The software programs are in place and do
not require the massive rewrites suggested by the minister.
The association is willing to pay reasonable administrative
charges so there would be no cost to the taxpayer. Rather than
letting his bureaucrats place unreasonable impediments in the way,
the minister should direct Treasury Board to provide this service to
a group of people who simply wish to protect their dental health.
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Ind. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the people of Quebec for
the patriotic and historic decision they took last week by opting to
remain in Canada. Fellow Canadians living outside Quebec are
grateful for this expression of confidence.
At this time I also express my personal gratitude to the
constituents of my riding who travelled with me by bus to Montreal
on Friday the week before, and to the more than 50,000 South
Asians living in Montreal and elsewhere in Quebec who worked
with me over the past two months on the Canadian unity campaign.
To all of you I say your efforts are deeply appreciated by all
Canadians. The dedication and tireless efforts to serve your host
country will long be remembered.
Finally, it was a pleasure to work with the various South Asian
community leaders in Quebec during the referendum campaign. In
a true sense you have made Canada strong and free.
* * *
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as members may be aware, this Wednesday is Take Our
Kids to Work Day.
Sponsored in part by the federal human resources department,
150,000 grade nine students from across Ontario will spend the day
at the job of a parent, relative or other adult. This program is an
integral part of the grade nine program and is supported by a
majority of school boards across Ontario. Through direct
experience it shows young people how important skills, training
and education are to their success.
Today I have a constituent, Natalie Martz, shadowing me on the
job. I am pleased to participate in such a valuable program and I
encourage all members who have the opportunity to do so.
* * *
[Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada has just launched Radarsat, its first earth
observation satellite. With Radarsat, Canada undertakes a new
international business venture using satellite imagery to monitor
our environment and manage our natural resources.
In addition to providing us with exclusive images of our planet,
Radarsat will allow us to follow the movement of ice in the Arctic,
monitor the risks of forest fires, and detect pollution in coastal
waters.
16238
Radarsat is among the first symbols of the evolution of our
knowledge-based society. It also provides concrete evidence that
space science can have major commercial benefits on earth.
* * *
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last Friday, the audience at Place des Arts in Montreal witnessed
the triumph of the human spirit and the overcoming of physical
barriers to success.
At 75 years of age, Anne Beaudry-Gourd became the oldest
graduate of the University of Quebec in Montreal when she
received a Master's Degree in death studies.
This great achievement comes after Mrs. Beaudry-Gourd raised
nine children, cared for a sick husband, hosted the radio program
Au pays des livres in the Abitibi region for several years, founded
the two municipal libraries in Rouyn and Noranda, and won a
literary prize with, among other things, an article on the German
writer Gertrude von Lefort.
Mrs. Beaudry-Gourd succeeded thanks to her great
determination and tremendous potential. Congratulations to a
much loved and admired woman.
* * *
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Premier
McKenna is on a mission in western Canada. He wants to explain
to his colleagues that the distinct society clause to which the Prime
Minister of Canada and he himself are referring is indeed the
meaningless concept set out in the Charlottetown accord, even
though this accord was rejected by a majority of Quebecers and
Canadians.
To support his arguments, he can also remind those unfamiliar
with constitutional wrangling of the key role he played in killing
the Meech Lake accord. Despite Mr. McKenna's assurances on the
purely symbolic value of the distinct society clause, the premiers of
Ontario and western Canada are incapable of recognizing, even
half-heartedly, the existence of the people of Quebec.
(1405)
Since we know that two out of three Canadians do not want to
reopen the constitution, Quebecers will quickly realize that the
vague promises of change and the McKenna-style machinations in
favour of distinct society are nothing but a ruse, and that real
change can only be achieved through Quebec sovereignty.
[English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in opposition Jean Chrétien told minister Kim Campbell
that-
The Speaker: I ask the hon. member to refer to present members
in the House by their riding or title.
Mr. Stinson: In opposition, leader Jean Chrétien-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway.
* * *
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, December 7 of this year will mark 20 years since
Indonesia illegally invaded East Timor and began a campaign of
genocide and human rights violations. This November 12 will be
the fourth anniversary of the Dili massacre.
Over the past two months repression has intensified as Indonesia
tries to suppress protest in advance of these anniversaries and
before the upcoming visit of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights. Several hundred people have
been arrested and it is feared they are being tortured. Others have
been killed.
Given all of this, it is totally inappropriate for the Minister for
International Trade to be planning a trade visit to Indonesia for
November 11 on his way to the APEC summit in Japan.
This trip by the Minister for International Trade on the very eve
of the Dili massacre anniversary demonstrates once again the
complete moral bankruptcy of Canada's foreign policy.
I urge members of the House to support the New Democratic
Party's proposal to end Canadian aid and arms sales to the
Government of Indonesia and I urge the minister to reconsider his
visit.
* * *
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to ask my colleagues to join with me in congratulating these
aboriginal Canadian communities: the James Bay Cree, the
Walpole Island First Nations and the Sanikiluak Inuit community.
Recently these three communities were honoured by the United
Nations for their achievements in overcoming great hardships to
improve the quality of life of the members of their communities.
As recipients of the United Nations award ``We the Peoples'' our
three aboriginal communities were held up as models to others
facing hardships. The award serves as a testimony to the ability of
16239
communities to come together under a common banner to promote
positive change in the harshest of circumstances.
I thank the peoples of the James Bay Cree, the Walpole Island
First Nations and the Sanikiluak Inuit community for reinforcing
our hope and resolve in bettering the lives of aboriginal Canadians
from coast to coast.
* * *
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, one who kills in the name of morality kills nothing except
one's own morality.
The world has suffered the loss of a great peacemaker. Mindless
violence has claimed a leader whose foresight and courage led his
nation from the twisted path of endless conflict and pointed it
toward the road to peace.
I was honoured to nominate Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin for
the Nobel Peace Prize in January 1994 and overjoyed when he was
awarded that honour in December 1994.
Yitzhak Rabin was a soldier who fought for his country and yet
he grew to realize that the only solution was to become a soldier for
peace. He survived conflict as a soldier but died as a soldier of
peace.
When I met him last year in Canada he promised he would
continue to work toward a lasting peace.
I extend my deepest condolences to Mrs. Rabin, her family and
the nation of Israel.
* * *
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
evening at the Beth Israel synagogue in Peterborough people of all
faiths will be meeting to mourn and remember Mr. Yitzhak Rabin.
I met Mr. Rabin once. He impressed me greatly.
Israel is an extraordinarily democratic nation. The struggles of
the great majority of Israelis to solve their enormous problems
through the democratic process are an example to us all.
Mr. Rabin's career was a key thread in the fabric of a democratic
Israel from its birth to today. He showed us the path of moderation
is not a soft option. It is a tough road beset by the pitfalls and traps
of extremists. It is a path often shrouded by the fogs of apathy.
(1410 )
Our thoughts are with Mr. Rabin's family and the state of Israel
at this difficult and tragic time.
* * *
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government's head in the sand approach to running the country
must stop. Our debt is $567 billion and Stats Canada reports the
October jobless rate increased to 9.4 per cent.
The Pollyannas across the way no doubt have been told: ``Don't
worry, be happy; the economy is improving''. The 65,000 new
entrants into the job market will not be happy until they find a job.
The increase would have been even higher if it were not for the
spinoff from the resurgence of the U.S. economy. While the Prime
Minister and his cabinet were perfecting their do-nothing routine
during the referendum, they failed to realize the status quo
approach to the economy will bring Canada even closer to financial
collapse.
The minister of HRD's orchestrated leaks about new job creation
schemes show he is still clinging to the socialist notion that
governments can create jobs. History has proven this approach to
be an unmitigated failure.
Why does the government not get out of the way so the private
sector can create some real jobs?
* * *
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
following the tragic death, two days ago, of Yitzhak Rabin, Israel
and the whole international community have lost a great statesman.
Yitzhak Rabin was one of the main architects of the peace
process in the Middle East. His death must not end the hope for
lasting peace between Israel and its Arab neighbours.
Yitzhak Rabin was like a reflection of his country and of the
whole Middle East. Born in a country under foreign control, he
fought for national independence before becoming his country's
defence chief of staff, and eventually ambassador, prime minister
and peacemaker. It is thanks to his dedication to peace if, in recent
years, we witnessed a rapprochement between Israel and its Arab
neighbours.
More than anything else in his distinguished career, Yitzhak
Rabin will be remembered as a man of peace who was loved by his
people, by neighbouring nations, and by us all.
16240
[English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
only two years ago Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin
proclaimed to the world: ``Enough of blood and tears. Enough''.
Today citizens of the world remember those courageous words
as they mourn the tragic loss of this great peacemaker. It is indeed
ironic that a man of peace should be taken from the world so
violently.
Today as we mourn his death we also celebrate his life. We shall
continue to remember him for the legacy he has left behind: peace
in the Middle East which will be treasured by every child who
comes of age in a better world.
Mr. Rabin knew the soul of his people and his people came to
him for leadership in war and in peace.
As we grieve with his family and his nation, let us resolve that
his death shall not still the life of peace.
* * *
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when a man of
war becomes a general of peace, we have surely witnessed a
miracle. When a man can turn a hawk into a dove, we have surely
witnessed a miracle. When a man can learn to give instead of take,
we have surely witnessed a miracle.
This miracle will be remembered as Yitzhak Rabin. The history
he has written will become a beacon of hope, a symbol of peace, a
miracle of humanity for all the world to share.
As but one who has watched his leadership and listened to his
words, I share the grief, I feel the sorrow and I know we have lost
someone rare.
* * *
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the first set
of supplementary estimates was tabled last week and with these
estimates the government is proposing $936 million in new
spending; spending that only six months ago was unforeseen,
unimagined and completely unanticipated by the government.
I am appalled by some of this spending. The government's
failure to collect information and its efforts to hide information
have led to an expensive Somalia inquiry budgeted at $7.4 million.
This could have been, would have been and should have been
avoided if the Department of National Defence had done its job
correctly.
There is a $4 million subsidy to Canada Post Corporation for
providing services to the north. I thought Canadian postage rates
are supposed to pay for delivery everywhere in Canada. Does
Canada Post need an additional $4 million subsidy to do the job it is
already paid to do?
* * *
(1415 )
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to bring to the attention of all Canadians that
November 1 to 7 is Pharmacy Awareness Week.
Each year there are 12,500 deaths, two million lost work days,
and $150 million in lost earnings in Canada because people do not
take their medications properly.
The purpose of Pharmacy Awareness Week is to recognize the
important role pharmacists play in health care, particularly in the
use of medication. It also serves to encourage a dialogue between
pharmacists and their patients on the proper and safe consumption
of prescription drugs. Pharmacy Awareness Week is an opportunity
for patients and pharmacists to reduce the risk involved with unsafe
medication consumption.
I recognize the efforts of pharmacists in the field of health and I
encourage them to continue their efforts to ensure that medications
and their proper use continue to improve the good health of all
Canadians.
_____________________________________________
16240
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, last Wednesday, in response to a question, the Prime
Minister said he was in favour of a veto right, not for the
Government of Quebec but for Quebecers.
When asked about this last week, both the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs and the Deputy Prime Minister were
unable to explain what the Prime Minister meant.
Could the Minister of Justice explain what the Prime Minister
means when he talks about a veto right for Quebecers?
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, last week we said that the best way by far to give
Quebecers the vote was to proceed with the good government we
had started to put in place and implement the changes and reforms
that were
16241
clearly demanded by the public. That was the best way to prevent
the next referendum.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I directed my question to the Minister of Justice because I
thought that directing it to the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs would not give us more of an answer than we had last week.
I will again put my question to the Minister of Justice. Could he
confirm his government's plans to table legislation in the House of
Commons authorizing federal referendums in five regions in
Canada, including Quebec, for the purpose of amending the
constitution?
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, obviously the government speaks with one voice, whether
it does through the Prime Minister, who is in charge, the Minister
of Justice or myself. Furthermore, the questions now being asked
by the hon. member for the opposition are about purely speculative
matters on which the government is not prepared to commit itself.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we will keep trying to find out a little more about the
vacuum that exists on the other side.
Does the Minister of Justice realize that this plan to hold federal
referendums that might amend the Canadian constitution means
that his government intends to go over the head of the Quebec
National Assembly, as it did in 1982?
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 purpose of a referendum is to find out how the public
feels. We know how the public feels. People want to stay in
Canada, and they want changes made within Canada. They
expressed their opinion. It is over. Because we believe in
democracy, we concluded that their no was a real no, and we are
acting on that basis. That is why we are going to put reforms in
place in Canada.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Justice refuses to rule out, as a scenario for
amending the constitution, the possibility that the federal could
hold its own referenda in the five regions of Canada, including
Quebec.
My question is for the Minister of Justice. In this context, are we
to understand that the right of veto for Quebecers the Prime
Minister of Canada referred to would consist in violating the
authority of the Quebec national assembly by flouting its
prerogative to hold its own referenda?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ):
Everyone but the Minister of Justice answered, Mr. Speaker.
My second question is for the Minister of Justice. Is this federal
initiative not an indication that Ottawa is trying to pave the way for
another dirty trick like the one it played on us in 1982 by amending
the constitution without the consent of the Quebec national
assembly? They are at it again.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
(1420 )
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, all
Canadians were shocked to hear of the break-in at 24 Sussex Drive
on Saturday night.
The Prime Minister deserves to be protected. He must be
protected, especially in his own home. The more Canadians learn
about this, the more outraged they are at this breach of security.
I ask the Solicitor General of Canada, where in the world did our
security system go wrong on Saturday night?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, this is a very unfortunate situation.
I met with the commissioner yesterday and discussed it with him
again this morning. I can confirm that I have asked for a full
investigation and he has agreed that such an investigation be
carried out into the security of the Prime Minister and that of all
official residences.
A full investigation is being carried out into this incident by a
senior officer of the RCMP not connected with the management of
the security system. The purpose of this investigation is not only to
find out what happened but to make sure it does not happen again.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister says it was an unfortunate incident. In fact it was
terrifying. I have my sympathies for Mrs. Chrétien, who went to
the door and found such a frightening thing. It is not acceptable that
it just be deemed unfortunate, especially on the heels of the tragic
murder on that same day of the Israeli Prime Minister.
It took the RCMP almost 10 minutes to respond. If Mrs. Chrétien
had called the fire department, their response time would have been
three and a half minutes. Why did it take so long?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have already pointed out that this incident is totally unacceptable.
16242
The commissioner of the RCMP had a press conference earlier
today and expressed his shock and dismay at what happened.
Obviously a full investigation has not been completed. It would
appear that the RCMP officers on the site did not follow
procedures. Instead of moving immediately to the house, they
surrounded the house before going in and arresting the person who
had broken into the house and placing him under control.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
platitudes and investigations and all these kinds of things are one
thing, but Canadians are demanding more. They are demanding
action, not just reports and tabling reports and all that. They do not
feel safe in their own homes. Now they find out that their Prime
Minister is not safe in his.
How can the solicitor general assure Canadians that this
government has taken immediate steps so that this will never
happen again? Will he commit today to tabling the report that is
brought forward so that all Canadians can look at it?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the report is going to be made to me by the commissioner. I will
review it. To the extent that information can be made public
without undermining security, I will certainly attempt to bring it
forward to this House.
I can also confirm to this House that enhancements and
improvements to the security at 24 Sussex have already been made.
The RCMP and the government are not waiting for the report
before making necessary improvements in security.
Above all, this incident is shocking and dismaying. It is
unacceptable. As far as I am concerned, everything possible will be
done to make sure it never happens again.
* * *
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice.
Saturday he confirmed that the federal government is opposed to
any constitutional recognition of the distinct status of Quebec and
that it is preparing instead to table in the House of Commons a
simple and inconsequential resolution which will not change
anything concretely for Quebec.
Are we to understand that the fact that only one Canadian in
three outside Quebec would be prepared to modify the constitution
explains the federal intention to offer Quebecers only a simple
resolution on the distinct society which will serve no useful
purpose to the men and women of Quebec?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I never said that, but it is our
intention to respect the Prime Minister's commitments.
(1425)
As my colleague stated today, the most important thing is to
ensure good government; then another referendum campaign will
not be necessary.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the reply by the real Minister of Justice. But I must
regret the lack of insight in his answer, which lead to my
supplementary question.
Because two out of three Canadians are opposed to reopening the
constitution, will the Minister of Justice admit that the only true
path to change for Quebecers is the sovereignty of Quebec?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
[English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
polls over the weekend indicate that in the wake of last week's no
vote a strong majority of Canadians, both inside and outside
Quebec, feel that the country should be more decentralized. The
polls also indicate that support for a distinct society clause is weak
and that such a clause would likely run into problems if the
government tries to introduce it.
Given these sentiments, will the government commit to
abandoning the distinct society clause?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have made it clear that
we intend to proceed with the engagements taken by the Prime
Minister during the course of the referendum. We intend to respect
those.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the answer is a little vague, but let us try to pin it down a bit more.
Will the minister not agree that rather than trying to enshrine a
distinct society into the Constitution, if that is what is meant by the
answer, legitimate aspirations of everyone can be met through the
devolution of powers for language and culture from the federal to
all provincial governments without the need for constitutional
change?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians made it clear,
both Quebecers who voted in the referendum and other Canadians
16243
across the country, that they want governments that embrace
change and governments that are prepared to challenge the status
quo.
We are the government that over the last two years has not only
challenged the status quo, we have laid out a path for
harmonization to make sure that governments that can best deliver
to the people are the governments that are in the position of doing
so. We believe that process should continue.
We challenge the status quo. Unfortunately, the two parties that
seem to hide behind the status quo are the Bloc Quebecois and the
Reform Party.
* * *
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
week as he left a cabinet meeting, the Minister of Justice clearly
raised the possibility of dusting off an ancient federal power of
disallowance which has not been used for more than half a century
or going before the courts to stop Quebec if someday it wanted
another referendum on its political future.
My question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Could the
minister confirm that he intends to use the power of disallowance
which, according to the Supreme Court, has become obsolete, to
prevent Quebecers from voting democratically on their political
future?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the real question, the most
important one for the future, is good government for Canada. The
Prime Minister promised to provide good government for Canada.
Constructive changes in the government's administration have
been discussed, and once these are implemented, we are confident
there will be no need for another referendum campaign in the
future.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if I
understood correctly, the Minister of Justice does not deny what he
said last week, so I am back with a supplementary.
Does the Minister of Justice not think it was indecent to consider
resurrecting the power of disallowance or going before the courts
to silence the voice of the people of Quebec?
(1430)
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the questions last week about
constitutional powers were technical but the concerns of this
government are not only about constitutional powers but about this
government's responsibility for political stability in Canada. The
source of that stability is good government.
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
kind of sick to think that the Conservative and Liberal governments
over all these years have raised the debt in this country to $567
billion.
On the very day of the referendum, the government quietly
tabled legislation to increase Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation's loan liability by $50 billion, from $100 billion to
$150 billion.
I would like to ask the minister of public works why is this
government adding a further $50 billion liability to this country
and an already overburdened economy, thereby expanding the
government's authority in the area of housing?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised at
the question from the hon. member who continues to show a lack of
understanding on the various programs operated by the
Government of Canada.
In the premise of his question, once again the hon. member
alludes to facts which are incorrect. The hon. member and all hon.
members should know that this fund is self-sustaining. There are
no appropriations from the Government of Canada for this fund. In
point of fact over 330,000 Canadians have benefited from this
program.
I would suggest to the hon. member that once in a while he
should get his facts straight.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
guess after the rough ride the minister had this summer he wants to
get back. That is interesting.
There are two types of liability in this country. One type is on the
books of the government and the other rest in the 24 seats in the
front here.
I confirmed with the vice-president of finance for CMHC that if
any of these mortgages are defaulted they are a liability against the
government. Perhaps the minister missed that idea.
Will the minister commit today to introducing legislation to
guarantee exclusive provincial control of housing, and if not, why
not?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first
part of the hon. member's question is no. The reason is that unlike
the third party, the government does not have an ideology that the
role of the national government is to be a Visa or Chargex for
provincial governments.
16244
We believe there ought to be a role for the Government of
Canada in the affairs of the nation. Such a suggestion which has
been proposed by the hon. member is not shared by other members
of his own party who are asking the government to put more
money into housing programs across the country.
* * *
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Solicitor General.
As my colleague from the Reform Party pointed out, an
individual armed with a knife broke into the Prime Minister's
official residence with disconcerting ease, thereby highlighting the
shortcomings of the security system designed to protect the Prime
Minister and all other Canadian parliamentary leaders.
How can the Solicitor General explain the fact that an individual
was able to break into the Prime Minister's residence so easily, and
does this come as a surprise to security officials?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
a complete review of the security measures to protect the Prime
Minister and the official residences is currently under way.
(1435)
Security measures have already been tightened, and once this
review is completed, I will receive a report, in light of which we
will take all the measures required to prevent such incidents in the
future.
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Does the minister
promise to table in this House the results of this internal
investigation?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I do not think the House would want the report to undermine in any
way the security measures for the Prime Minister's residence. So,
as I just said, I will do what I can to disclose the content of this
report, but it may be impossible to release all the information, at
the risk of undermining the security measures. I think that priority
must be given to the security measures required to protect the
Prime Minister and his family.
* * *
[English]
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians are shocked and saddened by the tragic death
of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin of Israel. They are also concerned
about the future of the peace process and our role in the Middle
East.
Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell the House what role
Canada has played and what future role we will play in the Middle
East peace process?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, indeed we are saddened by the tragic and senseless death
of Prime Minister Rabin. It is a tremendous loss for the peace
process of a man who dedicated his life to his country and gave
tremendous impetus to the peace process.
Canada has been a full supporter of the peace process and is
playing an important role as chair of the refugee working group.
Canada believes there will not be full peace in the region until the
question of refugees is totally resolved. Canada will continue its
efforts in this regard.
We hope that despite this great loss and tragedy the work
engaged in and started by Prime Minister Rabin will be pursued
and that all of Israel's neighbours will sign and agree to lasting
peace in the region.
* * *
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Penticton Indian band and the British Columbia
government have failed to reach an agreement regarding the Green
Mountain Road, a federally owned road. Yet another Indian band in
British Columbia is poised to set up roadblocks and the band has
threatened violence.
We have been constantly asking the government to exercise its
constitutional duty to be responsible for Indians and lands reserved
to Indians.
What is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development going to do about the situation?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is the B.C. treaty process
which was really a creature of the present leader of the Reform
Party in B.C. when he was a member of the other government in
cabinet. We have to make it work. We have put a lot of money and
lot of time into it. That deals with related issues.
The hon. member knows because we have discussed it that on
roadblocks all kinds of other issues come in. The roadblock is used
per se, almost as a bargaining tool for land, for the Penticton lodge,
for all of these things. We have to keep those in the B.C. treaty
process or we will destroy a process that we both support. It will
not work unless we go to that process.
Specifically on roads, I met with the B.C. minister of transport
Jackie Pement for an hour just before question period. We are
trying to set up a process where we can work collectively if it is a
road issue. If it is a broader issue we are trying to encourage the
First Nations to go to the table. Otherwise, if there is success on all
16245
the issues just because there is a roadblock, there will be more
roadblocks and the 70 per cent of the First Nations of B.C. at the
B.C. table will walk away.
(1440)
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well that there is no roadblock
at this particular point.
I have spent the past two weeks personally seeking out the
minister in an attempt to have him do something about this
situation. The British Columbia government is helpless. Its hands
are tied. Canadians have already learned that the federal
government's inaction was a major cause of the Oka crisis. The
B.C. government has been consistently reminding the federal
government of its duties and responsibilities.
Will the minister take action now and prevent another Gustafsen
Lake?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the premise. We
are working positively with the B.C. government and it is doing
fine work.
In October 1993 we came into office. In December 1993 we
opened up the office of the B.C. Treaty Commission. No other
government before us was able to do that.
We have worked 10 solid weeks to get the formula which
members have seen in the paper in the last few days and it is getting
there for the B.C. treaty process. We are close to settling the
Nisga'a. We deal positively on all matters.
My problem is not with the B.C. government; my problem is
with the Reform members who come from B.C. and refuse to
address the issues.
* * *
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Following a question asked on May 15 about copyright, the hon.
member for Saint-Hubert was finally told, five months later, by the
justice minister that he would transmit her question to the ministers
responsible, namely the industry and heritage ministers.
Given that Quebec and Canadian composers, authors and
performers have been waiting eleven years for this bill, will the
Minister of Canadian Heritage pledge to table this legislation in the
House as soon as possible?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly normal to have several ministers
involved. There is of course the Minister of Justice, since the bill
must be drafted by his department. There is also the Minister of
Industry, since he is responsible for the Copyright Act. And,
finally, there is the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who is
responsible for proposing amendments to the act.
The three ministers work together, make decisions together, and
will get results together. As for the duration of the process, I
publicly stated on several occasions that we are going as fast as we
can, that the issue is complex, and that the bill will be tabled in the
House as soon as it is ready.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary.
Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage make sure, through the
copyright bill, that the rights paid to creators will not be reduced by
providing numerous exceptions?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have to find a good balance between the rights of
creators-we are establishing new ones-and the rights of users.
This is the real issue. This is where we have to find a balance, and
the hon. member will see how we do it when the bill is tabled.
* * *
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we spent the last few weeks discussing Quebec
sovereignty in the House. I think it is high time that we turned to
another sovereignty issue and that is Canada's failure to assert
sovereignty over the Northwest Passage in the Arctic.
On June 13 the minister told the Standing Committee on
National Defence and Veterans Affairs that the United States
informs Canada when its nuclear submarines travel under Canada's
Arctic ice.
Will the minister confirm the existence of this, as he put it, novel
diplomatic arrangement, when it was signed and whether similar
agreements exist with other countries?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have a
number of bilateral agreements with the United States. One of them
provides for the movement of U.S. vessels in Canadian waters upon
agreement of such a manoeuvre.
When the U.S. requires such permission, they let us know that
they intend to use our waters and we acquiesce.
(1445 )
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if the minister is speaking about the 1988 agreement he
will
16246
know full well that agreement only covered surface vessels such as
icebreakers and not submarines.
It is ironic that Canada as a world leader in acoustic technology
does not even monitor subsurface use of our Arctic waters.
Will the minister provide us with a timetable today for the
installation of the promised Arctic subsurface surveillance system
in the Northwest Passage.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is one
measure that was foreseen in the white paper. It is a matter that
officials are working on.
It is a very expensive proposition and any move toward
implementing the system for underwater detection in the High
Arctic has to be made within the financial constraints of the
government and the department's budget.
* * *
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance. I come from a region where
small and medium size businesses compete not only directly with
one another but also with American businesses right across the
border. These American businesses have an advantage because of
the so-called free trade zones.
Could the minister tell the House what measures he has taken to
allow Canadian businesses to compete more effectively in the
international market?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-102, designed
to amend the Customs Act, has exactly that purpose in mind. It will
encourage businesses to locate in Canada. It contains
improvements that will streamline the duty deferral program and
will make programs more user friendly and accessible. It will
remove administrative restrictions and will ease cash flow
pressures by providing as much up front duty relief as possible.
Regions, municipalities and businesses will be able to co-operate
as a result in promoting their communities because a critical
component of the bill encourages partnerships to encourage
economic development.
I congratulate the member for St. Catharines because he has been
a leading proponent of many of the initiatives in the bill.
* * *
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Defence. Last week, we learned that,
on two separate occasions, members of the former regiment from
Petawawa organized dinners to celebrate the massacre of 14
innocent victims at l'École polytechnique. A 14-round salvo was
even fired.
Will the minister confirm that the Canadian Forces private who
organized these dinners has since been promoted to Master
Corporal?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this allegation
was raised at the hearings of the Commission on Somalia and we
will look into it.
[English]
This allegation was raised at the hearings of the commission on
Somalia last week. We are looking into the matter, but I can say on
behalf of the government that if indeed this were true it was totally
unacceptable, totally abhorrent and something we will not tolerate.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the
minister not agree that every promotion granted to any CFB
Petawawa official, for example that of Colonel Peter Kenward,
should be cancelled or suspended for the duration of the inquiry?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I am
prepared to do is that when I receive a report on the allegations and
if indeed they are to be verified, I will submit the report to the
commission.
It will be made public at that time and may therefore have some
relationship with respect to its ultimate deliberations.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last year when the minister of immigration
introduced a document entitled ``A Broader Vision'', it
acknowledged that defaulted sponsorship obligations cost
Canadian taxpayers close to $700 million in 1993. The minister
announced that initiatives would be introduced in five areas to
reduce that amount.
Could the minister advise the House whether these initiatives
have been successful and has the taxpayers' burden to default
sponsorship been reduced?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member may know, the
Peel project has started in earnest. It is working well. We are
finding out information that will no doubt prove useful to an
eventual position that the government will take.
16247
We have struck a committee that liaises with all provincial
governments. They too are very supportive and collaborative.
(1450 )
It is our intention before the House of Commons rises for
Christmas to have a final response on the whole question of family
sponsorship.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in 1989 Mohammed Assaf sponsored his
brother and family to settle in Alberta. Since then Alberta
taxpayers have shelled out $40,000 in welfare payments to support
the family.
Assaf then attempted to sponsor his second wife to Canada and
was refused by immigration officials. He decided to go to the IRB
that in turn ruled that Assaf did not have to pay his first obligations
before sponsoring his second wife.
How will the minister accomplish the task of reducing
sponsorship defaults when the IRB is telling sponsors that it does
not make any difference whether or not they repay those defaults?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unlike the Reform Party that
uses a negative, cynical case analogy or example, we prefer to deal
with issues on a national basis with some degree of thought, due
course and reflection. We will not be deterred by listening to
comments on the floor of the House of Commons about individual
cases.
We can always learn from cases whether they are in my portfolio
or anywhere else, but we would be wrong if we looked at one case,
generalized and made it applicable to all immigrants or refugees
coming to Canada. We will not engage in a small kind of world that
simply tries to create perceptions which may not be true. Let us
deal with facts. Let us find solutions that work.
I ask my hon. colleague if she would find the time and place to
come on board with that kind of attitude rather than negatively
parade individual cases before the House and then extrapolate from
them irresponsibly.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
legislation which privatizes CN guarantees that Montreal will
always be the headquarters of CN. The Transcona shops have just
as proud a place in the history of CN as Montreal does, yet many
are worried that Transcona is slated for extinction given the 485
layoffs on Friday last and the 266 before that in September.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister or for the Minister
of Human Resources Development answering in his capacity as
regional minister. Will the minister now, in the interests of regional
fairness and national unity, instruct CN either administratively or
legislatively to stop the decimation of the Transcona shops, to keep
Transcona as CN's main repair shop and to ensure the Transcona
work is not siphoned off to CN's wholly owned subsidiary in
Montreal, AMF, or anywhere else for that matter? Will the Liberal
government give Winnipeg the kind of guarantees that Montreal
has received?
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question but I think he ought to get the facts straight.
The jobs being lost at Transcona in Winnipeg are only of a
temporary nature. Therefore to assume that these are permanent
layoffs by Canadian National would be inappropriate.
The hon. member would know that CN is on the brink of its
commercialization and privatization. It needs to get its house in
order so that it can be a competitive and viable railroad, providing
service from sea to sea to sea and providing employment to all
Canadians across the country.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
will the government give a guarantee that the recall date will be
honoured and that the recall date is not just a way of appeasing
employees?
Will the government answer my first question? Why guarantees
for Montreal and no guarantees for Transcona and Winnipeg that
have just as much a place in CN as anyone else?
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I tell the hon. member that
the layoff notices are temporary.
I am sure as CN moves toward privatization it will become much
more efficient as a national railroad in the country. In fact there will
be future job opportunities for everyone in Canada, not only in
Quebec but in Winnipeg, B.C. and Atlantic Canada.
* * *
Mr. Ron Fewchuk (Selkirk-Red River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
(1455 )
Last Friday new figures were published by Statistics Canada
showing continued full time employment growth in the Canadian
economy. Given the concern of some Canadians that the
government is not doing enough to fulfil its jobs and growth
agenda, could the Minister of Human Resources Development
explain the latest changes particularly as they affect my province,
Manitoba, and young Canadians today?
16248
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, amidst the tumultuous events
of last week a very important milestone was not properly
recognized.
The government has now served two years since it was officially
elected by the people of Canada. The most appropriate way to
celebrate that event is to point out, with the employment statistics
released on Friday, that since the election over 500,000 full time
permanent jobs have been created in Canada.
In particular it is important to point out that last month alone
46,000 jobs were created for young people, which is the highest
increase in one month for young people since June 1986.
I am happy to report that in the province of Manitoba, which I
share with the hon. member-
Mr. Cummins: Time.
Mr. Morrison: Order.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): They just do not like
to listen to good news; that is their problem. They are just the Bad
News Bears.
I will simply conclude by saying that the figures show there is
still a lot of work to do. There are still far too many unemployed
people in Canada. We have now shown that the foundation has been
laid and the next two years will be even better.
* * *
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
In about 40 per cent of international competitive sports, national
coaching certification training programs are given in English only.
It is obvious that, in amateur sports, there is discrimination against
francophones even in elite coaching training.
How does the minister explain that a mere 14 per cent of all
Canadian coaches trained for international competition are from
Quebec and that coaching training courses for 40 per cent of
competitive sports, including biathlon, hot dog skiing and
synchronized swimming, are offered exclusively in English?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, responsibility for the training of coaches as well as
athletes rests with specialized agencies and not with the heritage
department. However, if my colleague cares to provide me with
details, I will, of course, be delighted to take a look at them.
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
The minister would know that as an unintended result of the
block transfers for the Canada health and social transfer many of
the Canadians who are most vulnerable or who feel most
vulnerable are Canadians with disabilities.
To date Canadians with disabilities have not yet been assured
that there will be consultation with the provinces to ensure that
persons with disabilities will not be financially affected by the
Canada Health and Social Transfer Act. Would the minister make
those assurances today?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question.
I know the hon. member would be interested that on Thursday I
will be appearing before of the Standing Committee on Human
Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons. At that time I will be
setting out a series of principles and directions for a disability
strategy which the federal government would like to retain.
In particular, the inauguration of the Canada health and social
transfer gives us a real opportunity to sit down with the provinces
to work out a mutually satisfactory strategy to deal with the very
important issue of disability. It gives us the opportunity to
collectively work together, to share resources and to come up with
a common approach we think will be beneficial to over two million
disabled Canadians who are without work.
I hope the hon. member will be in attendance at the committee
because I would welcome his remarks.
* * *
Mr. Elijah Harper (Churchill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Transport.
Recently the Transport Safety Board released its report on the
tragic crash of a Keewatin Air flight at Thompson airport in June
1994. Two people died in this crash and one was seriously injured.
In light of this tragedy, can the Minister of Transport reassure
northern air travellers by telling us what action he will take in
response to the board's recommendations?
16249
(1500)
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member
for his great interest in this matter concerning northern air
travellers.
As he has indicated, the Transportation Safety Board has tabled
its report. Transport Canada officials are reviewing the
recommendations. Within 90 days, in the middle of January, the
Transport Canada minister will make those recommendations
known.
I can assure the member that Transport Canada and the minister
will do everything possible to ensure safety in our airlines and
ensure that northern air travellers have nothing to fear.
The Speaker: My colleagues, this would bring to a close the
question period.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to ask the House for consent. Tonight there is a vote
scheduled for 6 p.m. and another one for 6.30 p.m., which now will
likely be held at 6.45 p.m. or so. In order to permit the House to
save on overtime costs and in order to permit members to attend
vigils tonight, would the House consent to taking both votes at 6
p.m.?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, humanity has lost a
peacemaker of extraordinary courage. Israel has lost a leader of
extraordinary devotion. Mrs. Rabin and her family have lost a
husband, father, and grandfather.
On behalf of the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada,
I wish to pay tribute to Yitzhak Rabin.
[Translation]
A man of great bravery was struck down by an act of cowardice.
Through their prayers all Canadians are with Mr. Rabin's family
and the people of Israel. Let us hope that these prayers will bring
peace to the souls of all of us who are mourning today.
Prime Minister Rabin dedicated and finally gave his life to the
service of his country and his people. As a soldier and war hero,
Yitzhak Rabin fought for the survival of Israel.
[English]
As Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin pursued a future of peace and
prosperity for Israelis and for all people in the Middle East. The
pursuit of peace became Yitzhak Rabin's mission.
When Prime Minister Rabin was assassinated on Saturday, he
had just spoken with a great sense of joy and accomplishment.
What he accomplished is truly remarkable. Will any of us ever
forget when Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat shook hands-a
simple act of reconciliation, a profound act of destiny.
As Prime Minister Rabin said, ``Our land of milk and honey has
flowed with blood and tears for too long. Enough, enough.'' With
incredible dignity and enthusiasm, Yitzhak Rabin has allowed the
world to dream of the day when Israel will be at peace with all of its
neighbours.
The history of Israel stretches back to the beginnings of
humanity. In that struggle, we have witnessed both the barbaric acts
in the history of humanity and some of the most noble aspirations
of which we are capable as human beings. Prime Minister Rabin
died pushing all of us to speak and to act for the better side of
human nature.
[Translation]
The death of Prime Minister Rabin should be an inspiration to us
to let our thoughts, words and actions reflect the best in our human
nature. As we emphatically reject the act of cowardice that took his
life away, we also have an obligation to embrace the cause to which
Yitzhak Rabin was dedicated.
[English]
As we act today, let us remember the history of time as Yitzhak
Rabin understood that history. Let us reflect Prime Minister
Rabin's understanding that it is up to us as individual human beings
to shape the forces of destiny.
As we grieve for the man, let us pursue his dream. As we pay
tribute to Prime Minister Rabin with our words, let us pay tribute to
him with our actions.
(1505)
Canadians continue to extend the hand of friendship to the
people of Israel. We shed our tears of condolence for Mrs. Rabin
and her family and we pay honour to Yitzahk Rabin for the nobility
of his spirit and his actions.
Shalom, Yitzahk Rabin. Shalom, Israel.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we were all astonished and deeply saddened by the news
of the assassination on Saturday of the Prime Minister of Israel,
Mr. Yitzhak Rabin. Today, we want to pay tribute to a man who
dedicated his life to the defence of his people and his ideals.
16250
A joint recipient of the Nobel Peace prize, Yitzhak Rabin
believed in the reconciliation of the Israeli and Palestinian people
and struggled to find ways to bring them closer together. The
peace accord signed by both nations shows that his efforts have
borne fruit and brought hope to this part of the world. We are
convinced that he did not sacrifice his life in vain and that the
road to reconciliation now taken by his people and the people of
Palestine will lead to a better future for all who believe in peace
in the Middle East.
We earnestly hope that his violent death will not halt the
diplomatic negotiations he initiated with Yasser Arafat to establish
a plan for peace in the region. We firmly believe that the process
started by these two leaders will prevail over radical movements
that are oblivious to democratic values and condone violence.
On behalf of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, I wish to
express our condolences to the family and relatives of Mr. Rabin,
the Jewish people, the international Jewish community including
that in Quebec, and to show that we share the grief of losing a
unique human being. Shalom Yitzhak Rabin!
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of my leader and our party I rise this afternoon to pay tribute
to the late Prime Minister of Israel, Yitzahk Rabin.
Rabin earned his reputation with Israelis as a soldier and then as
a politician. His first hand knowledge of the military and his deep
commitment to preserving Israel's security, first through arms and
later through peace, made him undeniably one of the world's
greatest statesmen.
It is well known that Mr. Rabin earned his credibility on the
battlefield. However, Rabin's greatest honour and truest victory
came through his pursuit of a lasting peace with his former
enemies.
He sought peace not through fear but through courage, seeing it
as the only hope for the future. He understood that true peace is not
the absence of all differences, but genuine goodwill and the putting
aside of those differences for the common good. Of the necessity
for peace, Rabin said: ``We should not let the land flowing with
milk and honey become the land flowing with blood and tears''.
Yitzahk Rabin truly believed that ``the majority of people want
peace and are ready to take a chance for peace''. He himself took
that chance and paid recently with his life.
Just six weeks ago, King Hussein of Jordan, President Mubarak
of Egypt, Chairman Arafat, and Prime Minister Rabin signed a
peace agreement on the White House lawn. In words that seem
almost prophetic today, Prime Minister Rabin said: ``Only poets
have dreamt of this moment, and to our great pain soldier and
civilian went to their deaths to make this moment possible''.
He was soldier and civilian both, as well as one of Israel's
greatest leaders. We hope and pray that his death, although tragic
and untimely, will leave a legacy for lasting Middle East peace, for
which he sought so valiantly.
Our sympathy and prayers are with Mrs. Rabin and her family.
Shalom, Prime Minister Rabin.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, Yitzahk Rabin was a soldier in war who became a soldier
in peace. He fought as hard to achieve peace as he did in war. His
greatest victory will unfortunately come only after his death.
The proof of the strength and durability of the move toward
peace that Prime Minister Rabin created is that there can be no
doubt this peace process will continue. It will continue until we
reach the comprehensive peace that Mr. Rabin so eloquently lauded
in the speech he gave before hundreds of thousands of Israelis
demonstrating for peace last weekend, just shortly before his tragic
death. There remains much to be done, but Mr. Rabin has made a
start possible.
(1510)
Together with two other New Democrat members of Parliament,
Howard McCurdy and Ian Deans, I had the privilege and
opportunity to meet with our Labour Party colleague, Yitzhak
Rabin, in the mid-1980s. We had a vigorous exchange of views and
certainly some profound disagreements, but there was a sense of
openness and mutual respect.
Since his election as Prime Minister in 1992, I have been
enormously impressed by his courage and determination to bring a
just and lasting peace to the Middle East. As others have noted, we
were all profoundly moved to see Mr. Rabin and Yasser Arafat
shake hands on the White House lawn. That handshake symbolized
the partnership in peace that has been forged between Israel and the
Palestinians.
The member for Beaver River and the Deputy Prime Minister
both quoted some of the words spoken that historic day. I would
like to quote some others. He said in prophetic words: ``We the
soldiers who have returned from battles stained with blood, we who
have seen our relatives and friends killed before our eyes, we who
have come from a land where parents bury their children, we say
today in a loud and clear voice: Enough of blood and tears.
Enough.''
[Translation]
On the evening of his death, Mr. Rabin made a passionate plea
against violence. ``Violence, he said, undermines the foundations
of democracy in Israel. It cannot be condoned and must be
condemned.'' During the weeks and months that preceded the
tragedy on Saturday night, statements made by certain politicians
and citizens of Israel in the course of the debate on the peace
accords were not only filled with anger but showed undercurrents
of violence. Yitzhak Rabin has proven that in a civilized society,
16251
political debate, however deep its roots, must be based on respect
for every individual.
[English]
In closing, I would like to extend condolences on behalf of
myself and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party of Canada
to Mr. Rabin's family, the people of Israel, and the Jewish
community in Canada and around the world. We share your
profound sense of anguish and loss. Remember that the Kaddish,
the Jewish prayer for the dead, is an affirmation of the power of
faith and hope in the midst of despair.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
like millions of people in Israel and around the world, I was
shocked and saddened to learn of the tragic death of Yitzhak Rabin
Saturday afternoon.
I was shocked because his death came just after he had spoken
and sung for peace at a rally of 100,000 Israelis. I was shocked
because his murder was completely inconsistent with the way of
life in Israel, where this kind of violence has not been a means of
dealing with political differences. It has not been a part of the life
of that democratic country. I was shocked and also saddened that
Prime Minister Rabin's own life, so filled with achievement and
service, had been cruelly ended before his main work could be
completed: the work of making peace between Israel and all its
neighbours.
Yitzhak Rabin proved he could be successful as a leader in
making war. He was proving he could be equally successful as a
leader in achieving peace. He had made war to protect his country,
but he wanted and preferred peace for Israel and all the peoples of
the Middle East.
It has been said that Yitzhak Rabin was a martyr for peace.
Therefore, the best way to honour his life and his memory is to
make sure that his work for peace continues and is successfully
concluded.
Just after this government took office, two years ago last week,
its first official visitors were Yitzhak Rabin and his wife. I, together
with my wife, had the honour of officially welcoming them to our
country. At that time, in talking with him all too briefly, I was
struck and impressed by his mixture of firmness, resolve, personal
modesty, and his commitment to achieving his goal of peace for
Israel with its neighbours.
(1515 )
There is a word in Hebrew that is used as a greeting. It is also
used to say goodbye and at the same time it signifies peace, that
most sublime of human conditions. Unfortunately we cannot
extend a greeting to Yitzhak Rabin on this earth again, but we can
say goodbye by using that word which had come to mean more to
him than almost anything else. We can say shalom. Shalom
Yitzhak.
The Kaddish prayer said by Jewish mourners concludes with
these words: ``He who maketh peace in his high places, may he
make peace for us and for all Israel''.
[Translation]
I want to express my since condolences to Mrs. Rabin and the
family of Yitzhak Rabin.
[English]
To Mrs. Rabin, to her family, to the people of Israel and to all
people of goodwill everywhere, I conclude with the traditional
Hebrew words of sympathy and condolence:
Hamakom y'nahaim etkhem b'tokh sh'ar availai tziyon
veeyerushalayim.
May the Lord comfort you with all the mourners of Zion and
Jerusalem.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
send our deepest condolences to the family of Yitzhak Rabin and
the people of Israel.
Although Mr. Rabin has fallen, he leaves behind a tremendous
legacy of peace and a lifetime of work for the people of Israel.
As a soldier, Mr. Rabin learned to meet adversity with courage
and determination, and as a statesman this courage continued as he
dared to make peace with the Palestinians and with Jordan, even in
the face of bitter criticism from the opponents of peace.
In a world filled with conflict and strife, Mr. Rabin did not
despair or allow anger to move him. He chose instead to dedicate
his life to laying the groundwork for a peace that will be enjoyed by
his children and grandchildren and by all the children of the Middle
East.
On this sad day, though the torch must be passed, Mr. Rabin is
gone but the need for hard work in the name of peace endures. As
Mr. Rabin said, we will continue the peace process. There is no
alternative to that regardless of what the enemies of peace might
do.
We must remember these words. In so doing I join with all
Canadians in hoping that others will step forward to finish the
peaceful battle so well fought by Mr. Yitzhak Rabin, an example
for us all.
>
16252
16252
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
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 three
petitions.
* * *
[Translation]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable
Environment has completed its consideration of Bill C-83 and is
now ready to table its report. Bill C-83, an act to amend the Auditor
General Act, establishes the position of Commissioner of the
Environment and Sustainable Development. I have the honour to
table this report.
* * *
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have three
petitions to present.
The petitioners on the first, out of respect and concern for the
sanctity of human life, pray and request that Parliament continue to
prohibit euthanasia and assisted suicide. The petition bears 135
signatures.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition, which bears 56 signatures, prays and requests that
Parliament act immediately to extend protection to the unborn
child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection
enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.
(1520 )
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the third
petition, which bears 208 signatures, requests that Parliament not
amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or
the charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would tend to
indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or
homosexuality.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present 209 signatures of my
constituents asking that Parliament urge the government to review
the Young Offenders Act in an open and accountable process which
addresses the following principles: deterrence of the offender, the
accountability of the offender, and the rights of the victim.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present a petition which has been
circulating all across Canada. This petition has been signed by a
number of Canadians from Ancaster, Ontario.
The petitioners 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 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 on 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.
* * *
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 195 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No.195-Mr. Riis:
With respect to the government policy regarding the protection of workers
from environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), (a) are there any estimates of the
number of workers under the federal jurisdiction who are (i) exposed to ETS
resulting from smoking where smoking is permitted, (ii) exposed to ETS
resulting from smoking where smoking is not permitted, and if so, what are
these estimates, (b) are workers who are exposed to ETS justified in quitting
their jobs within the meaning of the Unemployment Insurance Act, and (c) since
1989, (i) have any inspections been made to ensure compliance with the
Non-Smokers' Health Act, and if so, how many, (ii) have any tickets been issued
pursuant to the Non-Smokers' Health Act and if so, how many?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour): The
Non-Smokers Health Act affects almost 650,000 workers in about
26,700 workplaces under federal jurisdiction and approximately
240,000 employees of the Public Service of Canada.
(a) (i) There is no estimate of the number or percentage of
federally regulated workers who are exposed to environmental
16253
tobacco smoke resulting from smoking where smoking is permitted
and (a) (ii) where smoking is not permitted.
(b) Under the UI act, ``just cause'' for voluntarily leaving an
employment exists where, having regard to all the circumstances,
the claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving employment.
Working conditions that constitute a danger to health or safety is
one of the 13 specific circumstances identified by the legislation
that may constitute just cause for voluntarily leaving employment.
Before leaving the employment, a reasonable alternative for the
person working in such a place would be to report the situation to
the employer and/or the union so that the situation can be remedied
within a reasonable period of time. If the situation still does not
improve and the working conditions likely affect his or her health,
a person could reasonably prove his or her point by means of a
medical certificate or other similar document.
(c) (i) The national statistics at our disposal reveal that from
April 1, 1990 to March 31, 1995, there were 144 inspections and
467 complaint investigations conducted under the Non-smokers
Health Act.
(c) (ii) Until the Contraventions Act (Bill C-46) is proclaimed,
issuing warnings or initiating prosecutions are the only alternatives
to ``ticketing'' an individual for non-compliance. To this end,
labour branch officials ask the employer or employee to sign an
assurance of voluntary compliance (AVCs), by which they make
the commitment to cease the contravention within a specified
period of time. Failure to do so can lead to prosecution. From April
1, 1990 to March 31, 1995, a total of 156 AVCs have been received
by safety officers and no prosecutions have been initiated.
[Translation]
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
16253
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion 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; and of the amendment.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as we consider Bill C-95, hon. members will want to
reflect on the business of the Department of Health as it embarks
on its new life, its new beginnings.
The department is no longer responsible for social assistance.
Does this reduce its importance in the national structure? Is it
fading away? Is it weakened? Far from it. As I read the results, the
Department of Health is now poised and primed to take on perhaps
the greatest challenge it has ever known. It has gathered its strength
in order to guard the health of Canadians through an era of stress,
strain and dislocation that is testing us all.
It is finding alternatives to the financial resources once thought
inexhaustible but now known to be limited alternatives described
by words such as collaboration, knowledge and intelligence, waste
reduction and value for money. These are the watch words of the
new department, focused today more than ever on health because it
is focused on health alone.
The basic facts of Bill C-95 are as follows. The department is
renamed. Some inspectors are empowered. The social well-being
dimension of health is acknowledged and there are to be charges to
businesses for services that have business value.
A new name means a new focus. This is what the bill is about,
what is in the bill and who can object. It is eminently reasonable. It
has been well set out by the minister and by other hon. members
and the significance of the new name, the Department of Health, is
personified in that single word because of the very importance of
health to Canadians.
I would go one step further. The Department of Health is a
symbol of a new beginning. This nominal act speaks volumes about
a determination to focus intensely on the health of Canadians, our
most precious resource.
(1525 )
The renamed department will continue all the essential work that
has helped Canadians reach the top of the world rankings in health.
However, it will do far more than maintain hallowed traditions. It
intends to be a dynamic player in a world filled with new
challenges and opportunities for health care.
The department is in business to protect the health of Canadians
but it is doing that business in a new way, streamlined by a new
vision of the way things must work in the future.
What indicators are there of this new approach? None is more
practical or more telling than the consolidation in the department of
11 separate activities distinguished as such even up to the recent
main estimates into just four business lines. This move reflects
what has been learned from the program review process and
participation in the science and technology policy review. More
than this, it reflects a willingness to consult, to listen, to learn and
to change.
16254
The first of the new business lines will position the department
to support and renew the health system in Canada. It will try to
achieve a better balance among health care, disease prevention and
health protection and promotion.
Quality health care services contribute to the health of the
population, but good health is not simply the result of health care.
Rather, it is more true to say health care is the result of ill health.
Good health arises from a host of social, economic and
environmental lifestyles and genetic factors.
Hon. members are aware of the initiatives undertaken by the
Prime Minister's national forum on health to determine the
necessary and sufficient conditions for health and identify the root
cause of illness. The recommendations of the national forum will
guide the department in its efforts to make the system healthier for
all Canadians.
It will work with the provinces and territories to contain costs,
including the costs of prescription drugs, in order to ease spending
pressure on governments and the private health care system. It will
lead consultation aimed at interpreting the Canada Health Act but it
will not cease to enforce the act so that universal access to
appropriate health care is maintained throughout Canada.
Canadians look to the federal government, to hon. members here
in the House, to create bridges among the provinces. They want us
to ensure national standards for health care. They insist we
intervene to remedy inequalities and protect infrastructure. For all
of this the Department of Health is our means, our instrument.
Another line of business the department has recently adapted
will focus on the health problems of disadvantaged groups. This
involves marshalling a number of existing programs toward this
single objective. It involves new programs to be delivered in
partnership with the provinces. As well, it involves improving the
flexibility to respond when a new health need arises.
The department will intervene to help protect those at most risk
when it is clear that the federal government is placed to provide the
best care at the lowest cost. Affordable health care of the highest
quality is the aim, the objective, while eliminating overlap and
duplication with the provinces and other partners.
I will not dwell on the delivery of health services to First
Nations, Inuit and the people of Yukon. I pass over it not because it
is less important. Indeed it accounts for the largest share of the
department's entire budget. I pass over it because it has been
thoroughly explored in the representation of the minister and other
hon. members speaking on the bill.
This is the new business line that flows least change from the
department's previous portfolio of responsibilities. Helping native
people and northerners attain a level of health comparable to that of
other Canadians who live in similar conditions has long been a goal
of this department, a goal of this government. The goal has not yet
been achieved, but great strides are being made in the right
direction to serve the people of the north.
(1530)
The fourth reconstituted business line of the Department of
Health seeks to reduce the health risks to Canadians arising from
food and drugs, from consumer products and medical devices, from
disease and disaster. This is the regulatory and compliance thrust of
the department. This is the heart of health protection, where the
department stands on guard to preserve the health of Canadians. It
is here that Bill C-95 adds some muscle and meat to the refocused
mission of the Department of Health.
The transfer of responsibility for the safety of consumer
products and workplace equipment is formalized in the bill.
Officials of the department get powers in the bill to inspect possible
disease-carrying agents entering this country by way of foreign
products. The costs of services provided to businesses may be
recovered under a provision of the bill. If risks to Canadians are
going to be managed effectively in an era of restraint, new ways to
meet those costs must be found. This is one such way.
The late Lewis Thomas was a physician who taught at Yale. He
was a great essayist and was called the poet laureate of 20th century
medical science. Dr. Thomas wrote that the term health industry
provides the illusion that it is in a general way all one thing and that
it turns out on demand a single unambiguous product which is
health.
Thus, health care has become the new name for medicine. Health
care delivery is what doctors and nurses do along with hospitals
and other professionals working with them. They are now known
collectively as the health providers or the health team. Patients
have become health consumers. Once we start on this line, there is
no stopping.
We tend to forget sometimes that health is not simply a product
distributed in neat little packages from a constantly replenished
inventory on a shelf somewhere. We also forget sometimes in our
rhapsodies over a multibillion dollar health system that it
ultimately comes down to one patient, often hurt and scared, and
one medical professional who may or may not be sure either about
the cause of the complaint or what to do about it. It is a face to face,
one to one confrontation as to what to do. This reality is part of the
new understanding of the department which will be renamed with
the passage of the bill.
16255
I take the minister at her word, given to doctors at the CMA
leadership conference in March, that decisions will be based on
solid Canadian values such as fairness, compassion and respect
for the fundamental dignity of all people, of all Canadians.
In the October edition of the Fraser Forum, which is published
by the Fraser Institute, there was an article entitled: ``Two-tier
health care system''. I quote from the article:
I would say that of all the government health plans in Europe the German
system is the king among the blind. However, it's still one-eyed, it is still
inferior compared to a purely private system, I believe. Now, the German
system does not guarantee universal coverage-
The Canadian system is the best system, the single tier system.
Only last week we heard that great American, Ralph Nader, telling
us here in Canada to be vigilant, to be watchful and not to lose that
single tier system where all Canadians have access to excellent
health care.
I am pleased to speak on Bill C-95 today. I am pleased to
enunciate for the second time the new name, Department of Health,
and the significance we in this government place on the health of
our people and the well-being of all Canadians. It is because of this
naming, the single word health, that we give no extended situations
to other things but singly the health of Canadians and the
prominence it will play within our government.
(1535)
I urge hon. members in this House to support the government
with this very important bill. It is the fibre that helps this country
maintain the strength of its unity.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to speak on Bill C-95, an act to establish the Department of Health
and to amend and repeal certain acts.
The main change brought about by Bill C-95 is the change in
designation from Department of National Health and Welfare to
Department of Health. I welcome this opportunity today, because
this bill speaks volumes about this government's intention to
further centralize and strengthen its powers despite its
pre-referendum rhetoric about decentralizing.
On the face of it, this bill looks completely innocuous, technical,
minor and inconsequential. Yet, some provisions of this bill could
have a major impact on the exclusive provincial jurisdiction over
health care.
I will go over them rapidly because my colleagues from the Bloc
Quebecois have already reviewed significant health issues since the
beginning of the Canadian confederation. Just the same, it is
imperative, in my opinion, to bear in mind what, obviously, this
government tends to forget, and that is that, under the constitution,
health is an exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
Everyone agree on this. How can certain provisions of this bill
be justified in that context, I wonder? I am referring in particular to
clause 4, which states that:
4.(1) The powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend to and include
all matters-relating to the promotion and preservation of the health of
people-
(2)-the Minister's powers, duties and functions-include the following
matters:
(a) the promotion and preservation of the physical, mental and social
well-being of the people of Canada;
(b) the protection of the people of Canada against risks to health and the
spreading of diseases;
(c) investigation and research into public health-
(d) the establishment and control of safety standards-for consumer
products-
(e) the protection of public health on railways, ships, aircraft-
(f) the promotion and preservation of the health of the public servants and other
employees of the Government of Canada;
(h)-the collection, analysis, interpretation, publication and distribution of
information relating to public health; and
(i) cooperation with provincial authorities with a view to the coordination of
efforts made or proposed for preserving and improving public health.
These are provisions which are far-reaching and whose legal
implications are difficult to foresee. This is especially worrisome
since part of these are new provisions which were not found in the
former act, that is to say the act respecting the Department of
National Health and Welfare.
(1540)
This bill reveals the federal government's will to centralize, as
do other facts. I refer you in particular to the red book published by
the Liberal Party of Canada, which called for widespread
consultations on health care in the form of a public forum. I quote
from page 80 of the red book: ``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 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''. These sentences speak for themselves and clearly show
the Liberal Party's intentions even before they came to power.
In June of 1994, the Minister of Health announced the creation
of this forum. Though its own Minister of Health, Quebec
vigorously denounced this initiative and refused to take part in this
exercise. And Quebec was not the only province that registered a
protest. To this day, no province is a participant in this forum.
16256
A few days before the referendum, some federal spokespersons
changed their tune in order to win. They were focusing on change,
decentralization, and powers to be negotiated with the provinces.
What is happening now? Exactly a week after a significant vote
that clearly revealed Quebecers' desire for change, we in this
House are debating a bill that brings us back to the sad reality.
No change can be expected from the current government.
The government has no intention of relinquishing any of its
powers, despite what it said before the referendum. I hope that the
minister will fully comply with clause 12 of the bill, which reads as
follows:
12. 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.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to give a historical overview of the
legislation and of the federal government's interference in the area
of health care. First, let us not forget that section 92.16 of the
Constitution Act gives the provinces overall jurisdiction over
health issues on their territory, by providing the following, and I
quote: ``-generally all matters of a merely local or private nature
in the province''.
Moreover, subsections 7, 13 and 16 of section 92 recognize the
provinces' jurisdiction over hospitals, the medical profession and
practice, as well as health care, on their territory.
Health is clearly a provincial, not a federal responsibility.
However, the federal government has always managed to interfere
in that sector, either through legislative measures such as the Food
and Drug Act, or indirectly through its spending power.
Such interference has often generated tension and conflicts
between the central and provincial governments. Quebec has
certainly been the one denouncing most often and most directly
Ottawa's interference in its field of jurisdiction. In 1919, the
federal government established the health department and gave it
the authority to provide grants.
(1545)
In 1945, during a federal-provincial conference, the federal
government proposed the establishment of a national health care
program for which it would assume total responsibility. It should
be pointed out that, in those days, after the war, the federal
government exercised almost total control over the primary fields
of taxation.
In 1948, a national health grant program was set up. In 1957, the
federal Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act was
passed, followed in 1966 by the Medical Care Act. The Canada
Health Act was then passed in 1984, after a long debate and a lot of
criticism. The central government had decided to legislate to
ensure that health care and services that were medically necessary
would remain accessible, available to all and free.
That federal act had the effect of imposing on the provinces the
obligation to comply with these principles, in spite of budget cuts
that the central government would make in transfer payments to the
provinces for the health sector. The federal government also gave
itself the power to impose monetary penalties on non-complying
provinces. That act establishes national standards, namely, as I
said, the universality of services, accessibility, transferability from
province to province, public management and comprehensiveness.
If these standards are not met, Ottawa can withhold its transfer
payments for health care.
Based on the 1995-96 budget, Health Canada will spend some
$1.5 billion to operate the program and some $7.4 billion in
transfer payments. This department funds, among other things, the
integration of people with disabilities, the fight against domestic
violence, the new horizons program, the Seniors Secretariat, the
fight against smoking, the national anti drug campaign, the national
AIDS strategy, programs on pregnancy and child development, the
Children's Bureau and the national health forum.
I have always supported a health insurance scheme that is
universal, free, provincially administered, funded by our taxes and
available to all. I do not support a system with two tiers: one for the
rich and the other for the poor. I am, for example, concerned about
what is happening in the United States, which does not have a
public health scheme, preventing millions of people from having
access to proper health care. Health, in my opinion, is people's
most precious possession. This is why we must protect this system,
and make preventing disease and promoting health our priority.
Naturally, with Canada's and Quebec's aging population, health
care costs more and more. But services must not be rationed, nor
cuts made unjustifiably. Unfortunately, Canada's entire health care
system is in an acute state of crisis. Since the program's inception
in 1977, the rate of growth of its funding has not kept up. This has
meant a shortfall for the provinces. For example, in 1986, the
federal government cut the rate of growth of transfers by 2 per cent.
In 1989, the indexing factor was reduced by 1 per cent. In 1990,
Bill C-69 froze transfers at the 1989-90 level for a two-year period.
In 1991, the federal government extended the freeze another three
years. All this time, the Liberals were vigorously criticizing these
cuts.
(1550)
Now that they are in power, they have totally changed their
position and continue to nibble away at the Canadian health
system. Scandalous.
It must be pointed out that, between 1977 and 1994, Ottawa's
contribution to the health system dropped from 45.9 per cent to
16257
33.7 per cent, and Quebec and the provinces have had to absorb this
10.6 per cent shortfall, with great difficulty.
The forecasts for 1997-98 indicate that the federal share of
funding will be 28.5 per cent. Total cuts for Quebec alone are $8
billion dollars. To this must be added the $308 million reduction
for 1995-96 and the $587 for 1997-98 in the Canada social transfer.
Is this what the flexible federalism of the Liberal government
means? The only thing it is decentralizing is the deficit.
My fear is that these cuts will lead to the end of the health system
as we know it. I am against social program cuts, as I have stated in
this House on numerous occasions, particularly cuts in health
programs through the drastic reductions in transfers to the
provinces.
I support the campaign by the Canadian Labour Congress, the
CLC, to save the Canadian health system. This coming December
5, the leaders of that organization will be here to meet some of the
ministers and members as part of their campaign. The same battle
is being waged in Quebec by the FTQ.
As a sovereignist, I voted Yes on October 30 because of my
conviction that we in Quebec can build a more just society, a more
egalitarian, more humane society. I am concerned about the Liberal
Government's lean to the right, its blind cuts in unemployment
insurance, social assistance, old age pensions, postsecondary
education and so on. I am concerned about the antisocial
orientations, with their lack of concern for what becomes of the
least advantaged members of society, developed by the
governments of Ralph Klein in Alberta and Mike Harris in Ontario,
both Conservative governments.
In addition, I am greatly concerned about the right-wing,
sometimes ultraright philosophy of the Reform, particularly when
it comes to immigration, firearms control, cuts and the battle
against the deficit.
The British Columbia NDP government's decision to refuse
social assistance to anyone who has not been in the province for
three months concerns me.
So, nearly all of English Canada is aligning along the most
conservative of lines. In my opinion, the federal government ought
to show some compassion, understanding and generosity towards
our poor and needy fellow citizens. Canada has the means to
protect the unemployed, the welfare recipients, the sick and so on.
My wish in closing is for the federal government to do
everything necessary to preserve the health system in Canada.
[English]
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the
words of the member for Bourassa. I wonder if he could clarify a
few things.
He again reminds us that he is a sovereignist. I do not know what
that has to do with this bill. I would remind him to reflect on the
words the former Premier of Quebec and his own leader used about
the kinds of people they want to live in that part of Canada. So
when he says he is a sovereignist, I assume he means that he is a
Canadian sovereignist.
(1555)
I get this feeling in statements in the foreign affairs committee
and in the House that to that party everything seems to be a
provincial jurisdiction. There seems to be nothing left for the
federal government and provinces to co-operate on. Here is a bill
that calls for co-operation to maintain health standards across
Canada and keep costs down, and the hon. member cannot even
support that.
He quoted from clause 2. I refer him to paragraph (i), where the
minister's powers, duties, and functions relating to health include
``co-operation with provincial authorities with a view to the
co-ordination of efforts made or proposed for preserving and
improving public health''. Is the hon. member honestly against this
kind of a bill?
He also went on to say that he is against the two-tier system.
Great, I agree with him. So am I, and so is everyone on this side of
the House, the government side. How does he expect to prevent the
two-tier system if he allows health care to be the total
responsibility of the province?
My wife happens to live in Ontario and her brothers live in
Quebec. Their mother used to switch from Quebec to Ontario. She
would live at her son's at one time and at her daughter's another
time. If each province is responsible for its own health system,
their mother could not have done that. Under the present system
she was able to move from province to province and have her
prescriptions, doctor bills, and everything covered. Thank God, she
lived to 89. She had gone through Siberia and had the kind of life
that no one would want to hear about in this House. Yet she lived in
this country happily until she was 89 because of the health system
in this country and because of the standards that were kept from
province to province.
I would like the hon. member to clarify what he means. He is
against the two-tier system, yet he wants no federal involvement at
all. How does he expect to maintain Canadian standards if he wants
health to be the sole jurisdiction of the provinces?
16258
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
remind the hon. member, as I did in my address, that health is a
provincial matter, not because I say so, but because the constitution
says so. Very clearly. I quoted section 92 earlier.
I am sure, as I have already said, that we in Quebec are capable
of providing care to the entire population, care funded from our
taxes, quality care. We in Quebec have no need of the federal
government to provide our entire population with such care.
Furthermore, the health system in Canada is at risk today, not
because of the provinces, but because of federal cuts in transfers to
the provinces. That is where the true danger lies.
I think that the hon. member ought to get up to criticize his own
government's cuts in the system of transfers to the provinces. I
trust that he will react to the next federal budget because it will
seriously aggravate the situation. The government will be making
cuts everywhere, including health care, in the next budget.
[English]
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the hon.
member's statement.
Much has been said about paragraph 4.(2)(a) and that it in fact
has begun to encroach on provincial jurisdiction. I would like to
refer the hon. member to clause 12, which states:
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.
That clearly specifies that the bill does not move into provincial
jurisdiction.
(1600)
I will quickly touch on the issue of transfer payments. In
1991-92 federal health transfers as a percentage of provincial
expenditures were 31.2 per cent. In 1993-94 to Quebec it was 31.9
per cent. In 1994-95 it was 31.7 per cent. In 1995-96 it is 32.2 per
cent. I may not be an accountant but I surely know that is an
increase in terms of percentage of expenditure.
The major transfer to Quebec will approach $11.7 billion in
1995-96. It will account for over 30 per cent of Quebec's estimated
revenues in 1995-96. It means that roughly $1,590 per person is
spent in Quebec by the federal government.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Mr. Speaker, briefly, I appreciate the hon. member's
comments but I find that there are certain contradictions in clause
12 of this bill, which have been pointed out by the critic for our
party. Furthermore, practice and experience have shown us that,
even where there are clauses to forbid federal interference in
provincial matters, the federal level retains the spending power,
which it sometimes uses to interfere unduly in provincial matters.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
during the last number of years a significant trend has occurred in
health care in Canada in relation to the average length of stay that
Canadians have in hospitals. In Ontario alone the average length of
stay has reduced from some seven days to about 4.2 days.
There has also been a major shift toward ambulatory care. Rather
than having people go to the hospital and wait for a day for surgery
and so on, they come in on the same day of surgery and are out a lot
quicker; similarly with regard to maternity.
The member should also appreciate that there have been
substantial changes in medical technology as well as in
medications and that in fact Canadians are living longer today than
they have historically. They continue to live longer. In addition
there has been a tremendous elimination of duplication of services
between hospitals and community agencies.
All this results in a substantial reduction in health care costs. Yet
the member will clearly find out, if he checks the figures, that our
health care institutions province by province have been able to
service as many or more Canadians with less facilities. Those are
the savings.
Because the savings have been achieved by the provinces the
federal government has not achieved any benefit from the savings.
The member should realize that health care is much cheaper to
provide now and that the cuts simply reflect the lower cost of
providing health care to all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, I am in favour
of a universal health system that is free of charge and funded from
tax revenues. I think that this is a major benefit for the population,
and one I would not like to see endangered. That is why I would
invite the hon. member across the way to pressure the Minister of
Finance to stop making cuts in transfer payments to the provinces
in order to finance the health program.
Contrary to what the hon. member states, I feel that costs are on
the upswing at present, particularly because of longer life
expectancies. The population wants care, increased care. In my
riding of Bourassa there are very many seniors who complain of
not having proper health care. We can work together to improve the
system, but not to destroy it, as you will by making cuts in the
health field.
16259
[English]
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, may I say that
it gives me a great deal of pride today to speak in support of Bill
C-95 to establish the Department of Health.
(1605 )
My pride lies not just in the federal government's record of
accomplishment and achievement in the broad health domain,
although I have a great deal of pride in that, but also in a health
system that is the envy of the world. On top of that I have pride in
the knowledge that the genius of Canada's Constitution is found in
the fact that the world's finest health system did not come about at
the expense of a fundamental respect for the letter and spirit of our
Constitution.
While we are batting around our good and much maligned
Constitution I should like to make a slight comment. Members of
either the official opposition or the third party who are fond of
making comments about the Constitution could perhaps learn a bit
if they would read the Constitution. Many of the misapprehensions
we have heard from both those opposition sides might be cleared
up if they would merely read it. Maybe they need some help in
reading it. However they should read it.
We could speculate on how the Fathers of Confederation would
have dealt with health care had they any idea of the enormous
technological changes that would take place in the first century of
our country's history and in the even more profound technological
advances that continue to arise each and every day. Perhaps we
could speculate on how the Constitution would have been written if
anyone in 1867 could have imagined the day when health
expenditures would account for about one-tenth of Canada's
economy.
Last Thursday the hon. member for Drummond enumerated the
various heads of power over health the Constitution assigns to
provincial legislatures. She drew particular attention to subsections
92(7), 92(13) and 92(16) which deal with health institutions,
property and civil rights, and local matters. The hon. member could
have added that subsection 92(2) deals with local taxation and
spending and has health implications.
Those listening to the hon. member's stirring defence of
Canada's Constitution could have been forgiven for thinking that
everything the Constitution has to say about health is encapsulated
in subsection 92. The fact of the matter is that other subsections
also have considerable relevance. In the interest of peace, order and
good government and in the interest of ensuring the people of
Canada understand what is actually happening I should like to
name some of them.
Subsection 91(27) gives the Parliament of Canada exclusive
jurisdiction over criminal law. ``Ah'', I hear some people cry,
``what does that have to do with health?'' I will tell them. It is the
basis of a number of statutes protecting public health and safety.
That is federal jurisdiction.
Subsection 91(2) assigns to the federal Parliament
responsibilities for international and interprovincial trade. It again
supports the basis for federal regulations, as a small example, in the
area of drugs and medical devices. That is federal jurisdiction once
again.
Subsection 91(11) gives the federal Parliament explicit power
over quarantine and marine hospitals. That is an interesting
sidelight. It reveals a good deal of the thinking in 1867 about where
matters cease to be local and take on national significance:
quarantine and marine hospitals. It is not too big a stretch to see
that should be and indeed is constitutionally within the federal
domain.
Subsection 91(7) concerns the military and veterans. It is
federal. Subsection 91(8) has to do with the federal public service
and subsection 91(4) concerns aboriginals and lands reserved for
aboriginals.
All these powers account for a great deal of the federal role in
health. They account for the considerable array of the duties and
responsibilities set out in clause 4 of Bill C-95 and by extension
they account for the vast majority of Health Canada's operating
expenses.
When viewed from the perspective of federal constitutional
responsibilities, health is clearly a great deal broader than my hon.
friend's narrow view of health care delivery, important though that
is. No one in the Department of Health and no one on the
government side is trying to minimize the responsibility of the
provinces in health care. It is clearly not my intention to reopen the
Constitution on this occasion but to separate myths from reality,
particularly as they regard the application of federal spending
powers in the health field.
(1610)
I will again reiterate my earlier comment. The Constitution is a
wonderful compilation of documents that has been much maligned
both by the official opposition for obvious reasons and by the third
party for reasons I can only claim are obscure. Most of their
reasons are pretty obscure to me.
The biggest myth is that the spending power broadens the sphere
of federal regulation. The reality is that nothing in the Constitution
gives the federal Parliament the means to regulate provincial
matters in the guise of spending power. Perhaps I could say it again
very slowly. It can attach conditions to the funds it makes available
to the provinces. However, just as it cannot compel the provinces to
accept the funds it offers, neither does it buy jurisdiction when its
offer of funds is accepted.
16260
Clause 12 of Bill C-95 makes the limitation clear just as the
existing Department of National Health and Welfare Act also
makes it clear. It states:
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.
That is why the Canada Health Act does not forbid user fees. It
does not require that provincial legislatures forbid them. It simply
makes it clear that any province which decides to finance medically
necessary health services through such means cannot count on
receiving the full amount of financial assistance the federal
government is prepared to offer.
This brings me to the matter that the federal government is
intruding into provincial prerogatives. There is an immense
distinction to be drawn between intrusion and involvement. The
motivation for the federal government's involvement in health
financing does not derive from any desire to centralize powers or to
colonize a field of provincial jurisdiction.
The federal role in health care has been the exercise of
leadership. There are those who would hold that leadership is a
dirty word or a symptom of megalomania. I hold differently, as do
members on this side of the House. I hold that leadership is a
characteristic all Canadians value. All Canadians from all regions
of the country expect and demand their federal Parliament to
display leadership. It is not a dirty word. It is a great word which
we over here absolutely applaud.
It is here that doctors and hospitals cease to have just local
significance. The value that all Canadians share transcends being
merely local. The importance that all Canadians attach to the
principles of universal health care is a defining characteristic of the
Canadian psyche. This is who we are. This is what we stand for.
This is what we are proud of and this is what we fight for.
How is it possible to overlook this aspect of health care? I do not
understand it. It is beyond me. At a time when all Canadians
welcome the positive forces of reconciliation and partnership, I
cannot understand how we in the House would allow ourselves to
ignore the positive contribution that the federal government has
made and continues to make to the health and well-being of all
Canadians and to the articulation of the spirit of community that
hold us in high regard the world over.
Before I close I should like to tell a little story about something
that took place in my first session of Parliament in the House when
we were in opposition. There had been a debate, again I believe it
was an opposition day debate on the question of health care. After
the debate was over, I joined two of my colleagues, one from my
own region of Atlantic Canada and another from Ontario. We
talked about how important medicare and the Canadian health care
system was to each one of us.
(1615)
It turned out that each one of us had had fathers who had suffered
and families that suffered because of injury and illness prior to the
development of medicare in this country, prior to the Canadian
health care system. We came from three different backgrounds,
from three different areas of the country, but all three of us
remembered what it was like in childhood and how our families
had suffered because the Canadian health care system had not yet
been put into place, put into place I might add by the federal
government, a federal Liberal government.
This is why I am pleased to have had an opportunity to speak in
support of Bill C-95. This is why I and my colleagues on this side
of the House in the Government of Canada will fight and maintain
the Canadian health care system in the face of all odds.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome this opportunity to speak today in the debate on Bill C-95,
an act to establish the Department of Health and to amend and
repeal certain acts.
I feel particularly concerned by this bill since in my riding, 50
per cent of the population lives below the poverty line and the
quality of health care is extremely important. Although the
government claims it is only a technical bill, its purpose merely to
change the name of the Department of Health, that is not the case.
Since 1919, we have seen the same situation time and time
again. Once more, the federal government has shown its desire to
invade provincial jurisdictions, as we will show later on.
I must firmly condemn the latest in a series of hijackings by the
federal government. It hijacked the jurisdiction of the provinces
over health care. It started many years ago in 1945, and it is about
to finish the job.
Particularly revealing in this respect is the well known national
forum on health. This forum, announced during the election
campaign in the fall of 1993, was established a year later. Its
mandate was very clear: to develop a vision of the future of
Canada's health care system, foster discussion with Canadians on
their health care system, identify priorities for the future and
achieve a broader consensus on the changes that are required.
We know that the provinces, which according to the constitution
have jurisdiction over health care, are not involved in the forum.
What this means? The answer is simple. Instead of showing
some willingness to respect the jurisdictions of the provinces, the
government has simply gone over their heads without consulting
16261
them. The membership of the forum is a case in point, and I quote
the Minister of Health: ``The forum now has 22 members with a
vast experience in health care, either as professionals, volunteers
or consumers, and it will be a pleasure to join them in the months to
come to work on a wide range of issues''.
As you can see, the federal government did not bother to appoint
representatives for the provincial governments. Consumers,
professionals and volunteers come under the exclusive jurisdiction
of the provinces. If any doubts remain as to the determination of
this government to get the provinces out of this area, let me
eliminate them immediately by quoting what was said by the
parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Health at the twelfth
international convention of the International Society for Quality in
Health Care last May. She said, speaking on behalf of the
government: ``Canada has already taken many steps to achieve its
goal: renewal of the health care system. We are reinforcing the
community aspect of health care, improving the role of consumers
in this respect and looking for a more integrated approach to health
which goes beyond care as such''. She went on to say: ``We want to
improve the effectiveness and quality of health care, and one of our
common priorities is to promote the use of guidelines for clinical
practice. We want health care to focus on the practices that are most
effective for various high-risk groups''.
(1620)
These are fighting words for the provinces. Since when has the
community aspect of health care or the role of consumers and
health care been a federal responsibility? Are these not the
exclusive responsibility of the provincial governments?
Why did the federal government, as it paid lip service to
eliminating duplication and overlap, set up the national forum on
health? I wonder. The answer is clear: this government is caught up
in its desire for centralization and its obsession with encroachment.
It never intended to withdraw from the areas of provincial
jurisdiction it has invaded with impunity since 1919.
It is too bad that public opinion and the opinion of governments,
including that of Quebec, are not important at all to this
government. If only this duplication could be an asset, but
unfortunately, that is not the case, as we shall see.
Let us look at the repercussions of this obnoxious policy on
provincial governments. In Quebec, the provincial government has
for a number of years considered the changes that will be necessary
to deal with budgetary constraints and at the same time improve
health care services to the public.
Through broad public consultations, Quebecers had a chance to
express their needs and expectations and help identify priorities
and implementation mechanisms. The Quebec government's action
plan is ready and is now being implemented. Is there any
justification for the expense of the new consultations carried out by
the forum? Would it not have been better to respect the autonomy
and jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec and transfer all
moneys concerned directly to it for the benefit of Quebecers?
I am sure this option never crossed the mind of the federal
Liberals. Now it cannot be done, because the federal Minister of
Health announced in March her firm intention to direct all health
policy matters.
As they were thus assuming their so-called leadership, they cut
transfers to the provinces, thus depriving those who provide the
services of the funds they need to set up their own policies. In fact,
provincial governments, not only Quebec, will have to slash health
spending. In addition to their own budget constraints, they will
have to deal with cuts in federal funding.
Once again it will be women who feel the effect. A report on
women's health prepared by the International Federation of
Gynaecology and Obstetrics revealed a year ago that women were
sick or incapacitated longer than men. Moreover, as their life
expectancy is longer than men's, it is primarily they who will be
deprived of necessary health care because of the expenses arising
from duplication in health matters and cuts in federal spending.
For Quebec, these cuts represent more than $8 billion over 10
years. The provinces were not consulted, although they have to
incorporate them and suffer the wrath of their citizens. We have to
bear the unbearable.
Allow me to conclude with a quote from an article that appeared
in La Presse on March 4, 1995, which aptly summarizes the
situation. It said that, together with the provinces, Ottawa would
have to establish a list of essential services that would continue to
be covered by the health insurance plan. It felt that this was the way
Ottawa intended to allow the provinces to deal with increased
health costs in a context of reduced federal transfers. In the end,
according to the article, the bill for services not considered
essential would have to be paid by taxpayers.
The aim of Bill C-95 is to enshrine government control over
health. We have no intention of supporting this greed, which will
mean Quebecers and Canadians alike will suffer.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with interest to the comments made by my colleague from Quebec.
She raised what I think is an extremely important point, which I
would like her to develop further.
She talked about centralization and decentralization. We now see
that the federal government, in particular the Department of
Health, is trying to centralize a number of health matters,
especially the general direction of health care in Canada.
16262
(1625)
At the same time, we see that the provinces, including Quebec,
want to make innovative, creative decisions to better manage
health care within their territories. In Quebec, there is a wide
consensus to decentralize health care decisions to administrative
regions. I am not talking about Canada's administrative regions but
about administrative regions in Quebec. We see that the people
want to be able to define in their own communities the kind of
health care services they need and to have access to them.
This is in complete opposition to the tendency evident in the
federal government's measures. Our concerns are justified. The
federal government's centralizing vision is totally out of touch with
the expectations of people in every province, including Quebec.
I would like the hon. member for Quebec to expand on this, to
give the people listening to us and the members of this House an
overview of Quebec's favoured approach, which seems to strike a
chord in some other provinces.
Mrs. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, of course, this debate we are having
today, members and ministers of previous governments have
already had it. Legislation has been passed since 1919 that
basically encroaches on provincial areas of jurisdiction.
That is not what the constitution of 1866 intended. What it
intended was for the provinces to have full and complete
jurisdiction over health, education and manpower training. I think
that what is happening-When I look at the federal government's
expenditures, I think that the problem comes from the federal
spending power.
Federal spending for 1995-96 is $1.5 billion for operations, $347
million for personnel and $703 million for goods and services. If
this money had been transferred to the provinces, Quebec and the
other provinces would have had more money for health care, and
would not have had to impose budgetary restraints and to cut back
personnel and services at the taxpayers' expense.
What do you do at a forum? You discuss. You try to find a way to
sing the same tune as the other provinces. But in the end, as
minister Rochon pointed out in the Quebec national assembly, all
that the provinces do at meetings and federal-provincial
conferences is complain about not having enough money. There are
costs involved with holding forums and conferences. When you do
not have enough money, you stop discussing and start acting.
And in acting, you need money to follow these actions through. I
think that agonizing choices lie ahead. Quebec's goal has always
been to provide a safety net in several areas such as social services,
health and education.
The federal government is driving us back against the wall by
providing less funding. Federal transfers to the provinces have
been reduced by $8 billion. Who does the public turn to? To the one
making the cuts, the one that says: ``We will not be improving
services this year because we do not have enough money. Instead,
we will be downsizing''. As a result, employees too are concerned.
I think that I am not the first person to make this point. Since
1919, other parliamentarians, from Taschereau to Jean Lesage,
have made it before me. I think that there must be some truth in
what we say. I cannot understand the federal government. We have
to keep hitting it with the same arguments over and over again.
What a waste of time. Time has come to act. And to act, we need
money.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to the speech made by the hon. member. I
would like to try to put this in a simpler context. I think what the
hon. member was saying and what many Bloc members are saying
is that they would like the province to be totally responsible for
health care with no federal involvement whatsoever.
(1630 )
I would like to give the member a simple example and ask the
member's comment on one particular aspect of health care that we
take care of, and that is the research, study, and recommendations
to deal with specific problems Canadians have. One of them I am
quite interested in is fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol effects.
That disease affects about one in 500 births. It also accounts for
five per cent of all fetal defects in Canada. That particular disease
results in central nervous system disorders, brain damage,
cognitive problems, attention problems, and so on. It is a very
serious problem.
The federal government, using part of its money, one of many
studies and programs it does, looked into this in 1992 and
apparently is coming out again with a joint statement with the
provinces with regard to a strategy to deal with fetal alcohol
syndrome and fetal alcohol effects. That is just one example.
Does the member not agree that there are problems of health in
Canada that are much better dealt with as a national Canada-wide
effort-AIDS, aboriginal health, alcoholism, drugs, and so
on-and are better handled by the federal government rather than
handled individually in each and every province?
[Translation]
Mrs. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I do not deny that there are health
problems, but the provinces are certainly able to meet the needs of
the public. The federal government is not there to set standards,
organize forums and make studies. Rather, its role is to transfer
money to the provinces, so that they can act directly where it is
16263
needed. I do not deny that there are problems with alcoholism.
However, I believe that Quebec is certainly capable of setting up its
own programs and making realistic decisions, based on the existing
demand and need.
You talk about national standards. These may be appropriate for
a province, but less so for another. When you set national
standards, you must also provide financial support. We are
discussing eligibility for all. I agree with that principle. However,
do you not think that the federal government jeopardizes access,
for the population as a whole, to quality health services, by
spending and generating costs without even seeking our approval?
The issue is not health care, but transfer payments and the
provinces' responsibility.
As I said before, ministers and members of provincial
legislatures, not only in Quebec, have been wondering about
decentralization since 1919. The word ``decentralization'' was not
invented in Quebec. Other provinces are also concerned. Just look
at what is happening in Ontario and in British Columbia, which
will pass a law that may not please everyone. The federal
government interferes in fields of provincial jurisdiction. Given
that $603 million is spent on goods and services, and another $347
million on personnel, the federal should let the provinces spend the
money where it is really needed and avoid duplication of services
and personnel.
[English]
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to address the House in support of Bill C-95, an act
respecting the Department of Health.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the minister
who proposes this bill for the efforts she has made over the past
year to defend and strengthen the principles enshrined in the
Canada Health Act that underpin Canada's magnificent medicare
system. I might add, it is a system of which I was proud to be a part
in my previous position as a health care professional.
(1635 )
The department this bill deals with is an essential part of the
fabric of this nation. The minister has said that it touches the life of
every Canadian every day. Medicare in Canada transcends
medicine. It is both a service for Canadians and a critical bond with
Canadian federalism. Without it we would suffer as individuals and
as a country.
It is essential that medicare be sustained and strengthened and
that it remain as a bond within the country. This is the challenge
and the responsibility of this department. This is the reason for
Health Canada, and the reason I will support Bill C-95 without
reservation.
It is true that the provinces have primary responsibility for the
design and delivery of health care services. This is as it should be.
Health care is a local responsibility. Doctors and hospitals work in
communities. Provincial control of health care is not a weakness of
the system, it is a considerable strength. The values, beliefs, wants
and aspirations that define Canada and the Canadian identity are
not unique to any sector of the Canadian population or to any
region of this great country of ours. But the circumstances in which
health care is delivered differ across regions, and the health care
needs and priorities of these regions will differ. What we have is an
opportunity system, where 12 variations on a common set of
principles all going at medical problems in slightly different ways
provide administrators and practitioners in different parts of the
country with the opportunity to learn from each other.
The provinces plan, manage, and operate the health care system,
but through the exercise of the federal role and through its transfers
to the province, a national health system is the reality in Canada.
There are clearly many important health matters that require
national leadership and co-ordination. There would be little to be
gained, for example, if the work of the federal laboratory for
disease control were duplicated in each province.
Many federal initiatives in the areas of health promotion and
disease prevention have stimulated provinces, public health
authorities, and non-governmental organizations to work to
improve the health of all Canadians. Health Canada also has a
special role to play with respect to the delivery of certain health
services to First Nations, which will continue until the process of
devolving responsibility for self-government has been completed.
After World War II ended, our forefathers and our predecessors,
federal and provincial, looked down the road and asked what kind
of nation we wanted to have. What kind of health care system do
we want to have? What kinds of values do we have? As a country,
as a people, and as the Liberal Party, we concluded that top-flight
medical care was of paramount importance. We also recognized
certain principles of fairness, equity, and efficiency that reflect the
ideal of Canadians. Out of all this, our system of medicare was
assembled just over a decade ago. It was anchored by the Canada
Health Act.
If I may remind hon. members, the Canada Health Act came into
being in order to defend the principles that were the foundation of
medicare, principles of equal and universal access, principles that
were even then under attack by various schemes that allowed extra
billing and user fees.
16264
In 1983, extra billing in various provinces amounted to $100
million, a total that had doubled over the previous five years. An
erosion of medicare was taking place. The erosion was stopped
by the minister in 1984. When there were signs of it restarting
in 1994 under the guise of private clinics, it was stopped again
by this minister, who has insisted that the federal government will
ensure that the fundamental principles of the health care act are
maintained.
The minister has said that it is not her intention to preclude the
use of private clinics, which are often a cost-effective way to
deliver services. She has said though that they have the potential to
create a two-tiered system of health care: one level of service for
the wealthy and another for the rest of Canadians. This is
unacceptable today, just as it has been unacceptable through all the
years we have been building and defending Canada's medicare
system.
There is no mistaking where Canadians stand on this issue.
Canadians want effective federal leadership in the health field. This
is evident from the favourable reaction to the minister's
announcement regarding user fees at private clinics.
(1640 )
Hon. members who have concerned themselves with the
evolution of the health care system will be familiar with the work
ofDr. Michael Rachlis. He was co-author of Second Opinion, an
influential book that examined the Canadian system. Dr. Rachlis
recently criticized the combining of public and private medicare,
saying ``it entails a wrong prescription for what is wrong with our
health care system and then issues a wrong diagnosis''.
Frank Maynard, former Deputy Minister of Health for Manitoba,
warned:
We already have the beginnings of a two-tier system; we should not enlarge it.
Health care is not a commodity, so it is not a valid choice to offer the rich faster
access to required medical service.
Wendy Armstrong, president of the Alberta chapter of the
Consumers' Association of Canada, wrote:
What happens is private clinics choose to treat things with the least risk of
complication, least overhead cost and with potentially high volume. It's
skimming the cream.
I could multiply these quotations by the hundreds, but I will
conclude with only one. This segment is from a letter to the editor
published by the
Calgary Herald on October 16, 1995:
It is time for Albertans to stand behind the federal government and demand
universality of health care. This issue has nothing to do with political affiliation.
It has everything to do with preserving a cornerstone of what makes Canada the
best country in the world.
That just about sums it up. We are all in it together. For the most
part we are all delighted to be in it, because there is no better
system to be in, anywhere in the world.
The role of the Department of Health is to sustain and improve
Canada's health system, to keep it intact. That is why I support the
department, and that is why I support this bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we know
that transfer payments for health and postsecondary education have
been reduced over the last several years.
I personally asked the Minister of Health to give me the figures
in constant dollars on a per capita basis. There has been indeed a 7
per cent reduction over the last four or five years. Obviously, this
has had an impact on the provinces' ability to assume their
responsibilities with regard to health.
In Quebec, for example, we know that the Minister of Finance
has announced a $1.5 billion reduction in transfer payments for
health and postsecondary education for next year. At the same time,
we learn that the federal government is going to spend $2 billion to
buy armoured vehicles.
There is some type of dichotomy here. I want to believe that we
do need armoured vehicles, but health is also essential. Armoured
vehicles will not be much help to us when we get sick. There are
societal choices to be made.
I know that Quebec would not have made that choice. I know
that if Quebec had collected its tax money directly from the
taxpayers, it would not have chosen to invest that money in
armoured vehicles rather than in health care.
I would like my colleague opposite, if she can listen to me, to
talk about the societal choices that are made here, in this House,
and that have an impact not only in Quebec but in every province.
These are the choices that have Canadians increasingly worried
about their province's ability to provide them with the health care
services they need, considering the fact that they have paid for
these services but, for some reason or other, that money seems to
have come to Ottawa on a one way ticket.
How is it that this money finds its way here but is not being
returned where it should to fund something as essential and
fundamental as health?
[English]
Lip service is a nice thing, but here we should do something
more. We heard from the MP opposite. I am waiting for your
answer.
Mrs. Ur: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
questions. To reassure the member, I indeed was listening. I had my
earphone in and I did understand his question.
16265
(1645 )
I can certainly vouch for the efficiencies within Health Canada
as a health care professional. Dollars are being cut and a lot of
Canadians are going to suffer.
The member can rest assured that with efficiencies within Health
Canada, new technologies and research and development, they
enable us to work more efficiently with less dollars and to look at
eliminating duplication and look at where services can be done
differently. This is the direction we are headed. It does not mean
that Canadians will be getting less health care, but that they will get
health care that all Canadians can afford, rich or poor. I can attest to
that avenue in the health care system or any other department.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like the hon. member to expand in other areas the act covers
besides the medicare or health insurance component.
One concern I have is in relation to section 4(2)(a) where it
actually says that the department will be responsible for the
promotion and preservation of the physical, mental and social
well-being of the people of Canada. What I am thinking about here
is the social well-being component of the statement. With the
removal of welfare from the health and welfare department making
it strictly health, does the hon. member not think that addressing
the social well-being aspect is being inhibited now by having to
deal and collaborate with other departments? Following on that, the
Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was deleted and a
lot of that mandate when to industry.
I feel that the department is being diluted in its ability to address
the actual social component.
Mrs. Ur: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her
question. We have worked hard at health committee meetings and I
understand her sincere question.
There has been sufficient research and involvement within
Health Canada to make this diversity within the ministry as to who
best can allocate for all Canadians. I believe the right choice has
been made by looking at the ministry and the Department of
Consumer and Corporate Affairs working in conjunction with
Health Canada. It is going to be more productive because of the
avenues taken and it will be beneficial to all Canadians.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
compliment the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex on her
debate on this important bill.
I know the member is a nurse by training. I also know she is a
member of the important health subcommittee on AIDS. It is an
important issue for all members to understand that the federal
government has a role to play in terms of major diseases such as
AIDS which affect all Canadians.
Perhaps the hon. member would like to comment on the work
she has seen through the subcommittee on AIDS that the federal
government has been doing for the benefit of all Canadians.
Mrs. Ur: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be one of the members on
the subcommittee for HIV-AIDS. It certainly has been a learning
experience to say the least, to sit on that committee and hear
witnesses.
The ministry has been allocating dollars proportionately to
research regarding HIV-AIDS. Many issues have been addressed.
This disease certainly is not under control by any means, judging
from the stats that come by our desks daily. The dollars that have
been funded through the minister have been allocated most
effectively. I hope that in the not too distant future we will see
positive ramifications from those dollars. There has been very good
ongoing research.
Again, sitting on that committee has been a learning experience.
I am sure its work will be most valuable to the House.
(1650 )
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened a
few moments ago to the answer of the hon. member opposite. She
said that access to health care should not depend on the wallet, that
poor and rich people should have equal access to services. I could
not agree more with that.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. de Savoye: I thank the members opposite for applauding
these words. However, the question is: What kind of services? I
have a problem I want to share with the hon. member. She will
probably have an interesting answer and I am eager to listen to it.
Two years ago, former first minister Bourassa had skin cancer.
Where did he go for treatment? Washington, D.C. I want to know if
people with a fat wallet will have to cross the border to get proper
treatment. How come Mr. Bourassa could not be treated either in
Quebec or in Canada? What was special? How would health care in
Canada be able to cope with such a situation?
I am sure the member has a proper answer and I am eager to hear
it.
Mrs. Ur: Mr. Speaker, I again thank my hon. colleague with
whom I had the pleasure of working on the health committee. I
know his question is most sincere.
With respect to that individual, I believe it was freedom of
choice. It was his choice to seek medical help elsewhere. I can also
relate a story. My husband had a heart attack five years ago. I did
not have to go south; I was able to deliver my husband to an
emergency room. He was having a heart attack and they did not ask
me what my bank account was. I was able to go in there with my
only concern being to make sure my husband had the best health
care service. I knew he had it because that is Canada's health care
system.
16266
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): This brings questions and
comments to a close. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38,
to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the
time of adjournment is the following one: the hon. member for
Mackenzie-public works.
[English]
We will now move on to the next stage of debate. We have
exhausted the five hours of debate with 20-minute speeches and
10-minute questions and comments. We now go to straight 10
minute speeches without questions or comments.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my
colleagues to speak to Bill C-95, an act to establish the Department
of Health and to amend and repeal certain acts. I want to assure all
Canadians who are watching today's debate that this is a
housekeeping bill. It is not a bill encroaching on provincial powers.
It is not a bill kidnapping powers. It is not a bill discussing a two
tier system, one for the rich and one for the poor.
In any of the polls done, it has been shown that 89 per cent of
Canadians believe we have the most important and the best health
care system in the world. They believe in the principles involved in
the health act: universality, portability, accessibility,
comprehensiveness, public administration.
Health Canada has certain responsibilities that are implicit in its
mandate. Bill C-95 is attempting to make this explicitly
acknowledged. Bill C-95 is before the House at a time when so
many things within the world of biomedical technology are before
us.
Bill C-95 affirms a whole series of things we promised in our red
book. Partnership and co-ordination are words that are very
important to us as we move on this issue. Those are the reasons for
this proposed legislation. It is to confirm the existence of the
Department of Health and to specify that mandate working with the
provinces, working for a holistic approach to health, taking into
consideration the social as well as the physical and mental
well-being of our population.
(1655)
This proposed legislation contains a series of provisions
concerning the transfer of responsibility. I want to affirm-I think
there was general agreement on all sides-that the history of
universal medicare and the health department are intertwined.
The department has played an essential role in the evolution of
medicare from its infancy in the 1950s and 1960s to its current
status as one of the most respected health systems in the world.
Why is Canada's health system so respected? One of the reasons is
that it is predominantly a single payer, publicly financed health
system. That unique feature of our health system has been there
from the beginning.
When we were putting in place universal hospital insurance
coverage under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services
Act, the federal government cost shared the start up of this
component of the health system. The same happened when it came
time to establish universal coverage for physician services under
the Medical Care Act. Federal cost sharing was essential to
assisting provinces and territories in establishing their medical care
insurance programs. Medicare as we know it would not have gotten
off the ground without the federal role in and commitment to health
and its financing.
Cost sharing gave Canada universal hospital and medical care
insurance, but cost sharing had its shortcomings. The change in
financing arrangements in 1977 to block funding under the EPF,
established programs financing, provided the provinces and
territories with the flexibility necessary to focus beyond the
traditional hospital and medical components of their health
systems.
Anyone who says that the federal government is not a financial
player in health is not looking at the numbers, which I will provide.
In 1995-96, $15.5 billion in EPF health contributions will go to the
provinces and territories. The long tradition of block funding and
the flexibility it affords provinces and territories in their health
programs will continue with the Canada health and social transfer.
Scheduled to begin in 1996-97, the CHST will transfer $26.9
billion to the provinces and territories for their health,
post-secondary education and social assistance programs. In
1997-98, the CHST will contribute $25.1 billion. No one is denying
the importance of the CHST reductions but let us put these
reductions in perspective.
The reduction of $2.5 billion for 1996-97 amounts to less than 3
per cent of total estimated provincial spending on health,
post-secondary education and social services and less than 2 per
cent of provincial government revenues. The CHST is a balanced
and fair approach to dealing with Canada's deficit and debt in
making our health system fiscally sustainable.
Federal transfer reductions do not threaten our universal publicly
financed health system. The minister has said this over and over in
the House. Let us not be fooled by those who say it will and that
privatization will save the health system.
The Canadian experience bears out results from studies by the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the
World Bank. Both have said that cost containment is more
successful in health systems with a high share of public financing.
The public share of health expenditures in Canada was about 72
per cent in 1993. The rest, 28 per cent, came from private sources
16267
ranging from employment based supplementary benefits to
individual out of pocket purchases.
(1700)
In terms of cost control the public sector succeeded in containing
the rates of increase to 2 per cent in 1993. Private sector health
expenditures grew three times faster, with an increase of 6.4 per
cent.
Canada's publicly financed, single payer health system has the
built in capability to pull various levers to rein in costs. Global
budgets for hospitals and capping payments to physicians are two
examples which come to mind. There are many others which
provinces and territories can use without resorting to privatization
or putting national health principles in jeopardy.
The federal government and the Department of Health played a
key and necessary role in building our publicly financed, single
payer health system which continues to reflect the values of
fairness and equity on which the system was originally built. The
need for a strong federal presence and role in health remains
important in ensuring that fairness and equity are at the centre of
our health system.
I assure all Canadians, especially the seniors in
Etobicoke-Lakeshore who are watching the debate in the House,
that Bill C-95 is a housekeeping bill and deserves the attention of
all members.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it
is a pleasure for me to speak today to Bill C-95. Health is one of the
most important things in Canadian life, if not the most important.
The human being is the most valuable resource we have. We can
talk about resources, human and natural, but it is our human
resources which make Canada the best country in the world.
Today a fundamental piece of legislation for the operation of the
federal government is under discussion. Contrary to what has been
implied in the House, the role of the federal government in health
care is very important. It is crucial for the continued health and
well-being of Canadians.
Everyone is familiar with the major role the federal government
has played as the architect of a national health insurance system for
Canada. Everywhere in the world it is regarded as an excellent
example of public sector innovation in a crucial field of service
provision. We should not forget what the health system in Canada
was like before the advent of national health insurance.
Lack of infrastructure in the health area was highlighted during
the Depression when financing was so desperately short that many
doctors had to go on relief in the western provinces because
patients could not pay their bills. Military recruiting drives for
World War II demonstrated the poor health of the overall
population, especially military aged males.
Saskatchewan pioneered the national health insurance model,
first for hospital services and then for medical services.
The national health system we have today owes its origins to the
leadership of consecutive federal governments, first to build
infrastructure with hospital grants, with the Hospitals and
Diagnostic Services Act and the Medicare Act, and in our own era
with the Canada Health Act and established programs financing.
Who among us doubts the importance of this multi-decade effort
to build a national health insurance system, both in terms of nation
building and in terms of the security it provides each and every
Canadian that their medical needs will be met regardless of their
pocketbook.
We should not forget that the Canada Health Act, the last
incarnation of this major national effort, is a piece of legislation
which received all-party support in 1984.
Since this government was elected it has taken its
responsibilities under the Canada Health Act very seriously. Under
the private clinics policy a rigorous distinction is being drawn
between the public health sector for insured services and
entrepreneurial medicine. This is a critical distinction. No
Canadian should be able to buy his or her way to the front of a
queue for services. Services ought to be rendered on the basis of
medical need, not by the pocket book.
(1705)
As important as the CHA is, however, it is but a small part of the
federal role in health. Health Canada is operative across Canada to
ensure that the food Canadians eat, the drugs they consume and the
medical devices they use are safe. It is important to recognize how
much the department is operative behind the scenes to guarantee
security in these areas. For example, for well-being during a baby
examination, the immunization series is provided by a provincially
paid practitioner but the quality of the vaccine and vaccination is
ensured by the federal government.
Health Canada also plays a major role in encouraging both the
public and private sectors to promote health and prevent illness and
accidents.
Whatever the hazard of the day, smoking, AIDS, nuclear
fall-out, radon, ebola, the plague, there is a Health Canada
employee with direct responsibility for ensuring Canadians have
the information they require to reduce their risk and that they are
aware of the various protective strategies that exist to combat risk.
They can
16268
build on those factors in their social and physical environment
which will ensure Canadians are protected now and into the future.
Let us look at an instance of how this works. The ebola scare is
fresh in Canadian minds. The Quarantine Act was recently invoked
to ensure there was no risk of the ebola virus spreading in Canada.
Networks of federal officials from Health Canada and, with Health
Canada's lead, many federal departments were mobilized to ensure
security was always in place to reduce risk and follow up on any
and all suspicious circumstances.
Working with Canadians across this great country of ours, using
our public health intelligence of the highest calibre, Canadians
acquired worldwide respect for their handling of the ebola crisis
and their management of a situation with a high potential for panic
and public disorder.
Ebola is but one of the many instances in which Health Canada
rolls into action to protect Canadians. Many hazards have less
public profile. Many require detailed risk assessment to determine
how they should be managed. At all times Health Canada has the
responsibility for dealing with the national dimensions of hazards
to health and reducing them to ensure the high quality of life
Canadians enjoy.
Another key role in the department is in the population health
area. Recently we have come to understand the power of taking
population and sub-populations as the primary unit of analysis in
the development of health policy and programming. The health
status of populations is heavily influenced by a number of key
health determinants including biology, income, education,
environment, to mention a few. The department is now in the
process of operationalizing the health determinants perspective on
issues with the help of many of the country's most creative thinkers
in the health area.
As an illustration, take Canada's children as a key
sub-population. Concern is increasing about key social indicators
such as rates of youth offences and incarceration. Quite recently
there was a study on young women which is very troubling partly
because of our poor economy.
The preconditions for these increases in rates are set much
earlier in the development of a young person. There are recognized
determinants that are predictors of pathways that lead to healthy
child development; for example, supportive families, social
networks, parental employment and so on. There are others that are
strong predictors of difficulties in achieving healthy development;
for example, inadequate nutrition, high risk socialization patterns.
Important policy factors in development include developing
positive relationships, experiencing success and developing
self-esteem.
We need to take these types of development considerations into
account if we are to build a society in which all young people are
able to thrive.
(1710)
Health Canada is working to make this possible. Programs such
as prenatal nutrition and aboriginal headstart are breaking down
many of the barriers to a healthy development.
With a population optic on these issues and key investments
targeted early in life, we will achieve much to reverse some of
society's most ingrained problems.
Health Canada has therefore a major role to play in improving
Canadian society. Proof of these important efforts lies in the high
quality of life Canadians continue to enjoy despite the rigours of
the economic climate of today, the quality of which is unrivalled in
the world and will do much to strengthen the federation as we
proceed to implement the important post referendum change
agenda.
I come from a rural riding. In that riding medicare is important
but with the changes we have, the changes in technology for
instance, practitioners and people with experience could use video
conferences. We will be recruiting very young, good positions and
finding ways to look after rural ridings.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question is on the
amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
[Translation]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour 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 nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Call in the members.
And the division bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45(5)(a), the recorded division on the motion before the
House stands deferred until 6 p.m. today, at which time the bells to
call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
16269
[English]
Hon. Michel Dupuy (for the Minister of the Environment,
Lib.) moved that Bill C-94, an act to regulate interprovincial trade
in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain
manganese based substances, be read the third time and passed.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I will explain to the House what is in Bill C-94 and why
we are taking immediate action against MMT. I will also respond to
some of the misplaced concerns expressed by members of the
opposition as well as identify why the government is addressing the
MMT question.
As many members are now aware, MMT is a manganese based
fuel additive used to increase the octane rating of gasoline. It has
been used in Canada since 1977 as a replacement for lead in
unleaded gasoline. Lead was phased out of virtually all Canadian
gasoline by 1990. Canada is one of the few countries that use
MMT. The United States banned it from unleaded gasoline in 1978.
Gasoline containing MMT adversely impacts the operation of
sophisticated onboard diagnostic systems. These OBD systems are
important because they monitor the performance of emission
control components in vehicles.
The auto industry has made the decision that it will no longer
accept the risk of increased warranty repair costs caused by MMT
related damage.
(1715 )
Some companies have even indicated they will disconnect the
OBD systems in whole or in part and may reduce Canadian vehicle
warranty coverage starting with the 1996 model year if MMT
continues to be used in Canadian gasoline. That means the
increased cost of maintaining these systems would be passed on
directly to the Canadian consumer.
The Canadian Automobile Association is a 3.7 million member
consumer advocate organization for automobile owners. During its
presentation to the standing committee it articulately outlined
concerns facing Canadians both environmentally and
economically. It stated that MMT is a heavy metal based fuel
additive. When the sensors of the OBDs are coated with the heavy
metal they cannot properly detect oxygen.
It is easy to see then that when sensors give a false reading, the
warning light signals the motorist and the motorist would bring the
car in for unnecessary warranty covered repair work. This cost will
undoubtedly be transferred to the consumer down the road in the
form of higher automobile sale prices, making already difficult car
purchases an impossibility for many prospective car buyers.
Because the new OBDs are an advanced system of detection that
catches ignition problems as soon as they fall below standard, the
CAA states that the new system of OBDs will be one of the best
things that could happen to cars from an environmental
perspective, and if MMT would reduce its effectiveness, CAA
wholeheartedly endorses a ban on the substance.
Consumers will opt not to use MMT in their fuel. The Reform
Party is against this ban. The Reform Party should remember to
represent its constituents and not take the position of defending a
special interest lobby group against the wishes and protection of
the people of Canada.
Who is the Reform Party standing up for, Ethyl Corporation, an
American based firm which is the sole manufacturer of MMT?
Ethyl Corporation manufactures MMT in the U.S. and ships it to
Canada.
The Reform Party claims there is no reason for this bill. It says
the minister is unilaterally pushing the legislation through. This
process began under the previous government, which saw the
necessity to examine the MMT question.
Last October the Minister of the Environment urged both the
automotive and petroleum producing industries to voluntarily
resolve the issue of MMT in Canada by the end of 1994, otherwise
the government would take action. This deadline was subsequently
extended into February of this year to review automobile and
petroleum industry proposals.
The matter was not resolved and so the federal government has
had to step in. The result is Bill C-94. The MMT issue is no longer
an industry dispute and this is important to understand. Its outcome
can affect the vehicle emissions programs we are putting into
place. It could also negatively impact the automotive sector which
would pass the newly incurred costs on to the Canadian consumer.
Some members of the House have gone so far as to suggest
MMT creates great benefits for Canada's environment. They
suggest that nitrous oxide emissions are reduced by 20 per cent
when MMT is used. What they do not say is that this claim is based
on data collected by Ethyl Corporation, the makers of MMT, from
test cars that were driven 50,000 to 110,000 miles. This was then
extrapolated to 195,000 miles.
This does not take into consideration the adverse wear and tear
of the automobile which is degraded over time. Because of this it
has been determined that there has been no rigorous scientific basis
for applying the Ethyl Corporation's average emission values to
Canada-wide projections.
16270
When examined in the context of the current Canadian fleet,
Environment Canada's analysis indicates that NOx reduction
would be only about 5 per cent. This has been substantiated by
the University of Waterloo institute for improvement in quality
and productivity. The report also indicates that the results of a
study by Ethyl Corporation on reduction of NOx emissions greatly
overestimates the reductions in NOx.
The Ethyl Corporation experiments have not been shown to be
representative of field vehicle use, and the scientific rigour of the
experiments is uncertain.
Ethyl's research was conducted and presented by a private
consultant from the U.S. When I asked about the extreme
differences in statistical data between the Ethyl Corporation report
and the University of Waterloo analysis, she replied: ``Statistics is
not an exact science. There isn't only one right way to look at a set
of numbers''.
(1720 )
As every member of the House knows, the University of
Waterloo is a Canadian university whose research is of national and
international acclaim. The University of Waterloo does not have a
particular vested interest, being a public university. So whose
interpretation of the statistics is more likely to be in the public
interest?
What would the Reform Party know about scientifically proven
environmental concerns? Very little. This is the same Reform Party
whose member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia
stated earlier in the House: ``There is an awful lot of voodoo
science around with respect to the effects of man made carbon
dioxide on global warming''. Can anyone believe this? Voodoo
science?
I am continuously shocked by statements made by the Reform
members who choose to ignore accepted realities. Ninety-nine of
the one hundred and ninety-six living Nobel Laureate scientists
along with roughly 2,000 other world scientists jointly signed an
urgent warning to humanity. In their declaration they appealed to
the people of the world to take immediate action to halt the
accelerating damage threatening humanity's global life support
systems.
I quote from their media release when I say human activities
may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in
the manner we know. A great change in our stewardship of the
earth and the life on it is required if vast human misery is to be
avoided. This kind of consensus is truly unprecedented.
The urgent appeal goes on to say that no more than one or a few
decades remain before the chance to revert the threats we now
confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably
diminished.
The Reform Party openly scorns the leading scientists of our
planet. Voodoo science? Is the Reform Party suggesting the Nobel
Prize is a mystical, voodoo award?
To return to the claim by Ethyl Corporation of a 20 per cent
reduction of NOx emissions, if this 20 per cent reduction claim
were true, why would the people who make cars in this country be
working hard to make onboard diagnostic systems so advanced if
MMT fuel could do the job by itself? The reason they are working
hard is simple. MMT does not provide the answers to NOx
reduction that its makers claim. Let us be very clear about this.
Los Angeles has some of the worst pollution problems in North
America. California has taken strong action against environmental
pollutants, including a ban on the use of MMT. If MMT is what
Ethyl Corporation and the Reform Party advocate as a product to
reduce NOx emissions, perhaps they should consider why the state
of California has acted decisively on the issue.
Canada is one of the few countries that uses MMT. While we are
on the topic, some members opposite are citing a recent U.S. court
hearing in favour of the Ethyl Corporation, the producers of MMT.
MMT will still be banned in California and in those states that
require federal reformulated gasolines to be used. That means 30
per cent of the United States will continue with the ban on the use
of MMT in fuel.
Furthermore, witnesses have told the committee that given the
negative consumer attitudes toward MMT it is very likely
consumers will demand to use MMT free gasoline, just as the
consumers have chosen to use unleaded gasoline. What is more, we
have yet to see if the U.S. government will appeal the decision.
Some members opposite also quite conveniently fail to talk
about what the onboard diagnostic system does and what can
happen if and when MMT causes the system to fail. Onboard
diagnostic systems are designed to monitor the performance of
pollution control systems, in particular the catalytic converter, and
alert the driver to malfunctions.
If the OBD system is not working a 50 per cent reduction in the
efficiency of the catalyst translates into a twofold increase in
emissions compared with a properly functioning vehicle. What we
are talking about is the failure of new emissions technology in
automobiles resulting in increased car emissions harmful to our
environment.
Let us also be clear about the economic impact of removing
MMT. Some members of the House have suggested the cost would
be in the billions of dollars. In fact the costs will be small for the
entire petroleum industry. Estimates of the costs of MMT removal
provided by the industry itself range from $50 million to $83
16271
million per year which means an additional one-tenth to
one-quarter of a cent per litre increase at the pumps.
(1725)
Furthermore, likely alternatives to MMT would be produced in
Canada, creating more jobs and opportunities for Canadians,
whereas MMT is produced exclusively in the U.S. My question to
the members of the Reform Party is why are they opposing this
bill? Whose interests are they protecting?
The bill has a number of important improvements for Canadians.
here are some of the key highlights of the bill. It will prohibit the
import or interprovincial trade for a commercial purpose of MMT
or anything containing MMT. It will give the minister the power to
authorize exceptions for MMT that will not be used in unleaded
gasoline subject to a monitoring requirement. Coverage of the act
can be expanded by order in council to cover other manganese
based substances used in automotive fuel.
The act is binding on all persons and entities including the
federal and provincial governments. The enforcement tools are
similar to those in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The
penalties are strict. For the unauthorized import or interprovincial
trade of MMT the maximum penalty on summary conviction is a
$300,000 fine and/or six months in jail, and on indictment the
maximum fine is $1 million and/or three years in jail. For
knowingly providing false or misleading information on the
importation or interprovincial trade of MMT the penalties are the
same but with a maximum of five years in jail instead of three on
indictment.
On conviction, as in CEPA, the court can also order an additional
fine equal to the monetary benefits resulting from the offence,
prohibit conduct that may lead to a repeat offence and direct the
offender to notify third parties about the conviction.
In summary, we have two polarized positions on this issue. On
one hand, over 20 automotive manufacturers, competitors,
independently came to the same conclusion that MMT is harmful
to OBD systems on their cars, OBD systems that are necessary to
reduce emissions. The CAA, a consumer advocate organization,
supports this position. A report from the University of Waterloo
supports its claims with regard to NOx emissions. It has undertaken
a considerable amount of work to prepare its support of the ban. If
MMT really reduced NOx in the quantities suggested by Ethyl
Corporation it could reduce emissions for the automotive
manufacturers for free.
On the other hand, we have an American company, the sole
manufacturer of MMT, holding an opposing position. I remind the
House that Ethyl Corporation fought against the reduction of lead
in gasoline in 1984.
This legislation is for Canadians. It is to protect Canadians from
increases in automobile prices. It is legislation to protect our
environment by ensuring the effective use of new, advanced
onboard diagnostic systems for cleaner exhaust emissions. It is my
commitment to the people of York-Simcoe for a better
community.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Madam Speaker, we
are now at third reading of Bill C-94, an act to regulate
interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial
purposes of certain manganese-based substances.
This bill is more directly aimed at prohibiting the commercial
use of MMT in Canada. MMT is added to gasoline to raise its
octane level, and, consequently, to improve engine performance.
The Minister of the Environment reached this decision on April 5,
and today we are being asked to vote on the decision to ban the use
of MMT in Canada.
But the minister has not been very convincing in this matter.
Indeed, there are many questions on this bill, which remain
unanswered, and the minister totally refuses to look at them. She is
dismissing all other analyses, studies and solutions put forward. It
cannot be said that open-mindedness and a sense of conciliation are
the strongest qualities of the Minister of the Environment, who is
also Deputy Prime Minister.
In this case, as in many others, the minister has decided and
stands firm, in spite of the strong opposition of the petroleum
industry and Ethyl, the company producing MMT. The minister is
closing her eyes and seems to be simply responding to the
carmakers' lobby which, strange coincidence, is concentrated in
her part of the country.
(1730)
I am not saying that the automotive industry does not have valid
reasons or arguments for not wanting MMT in its vehicles. I am
simply saying that the minister is leaning to one side and that she
does not listen to the arguments of the other side. But this attitude
on the part of the Minister of the Environment is not new. In many
other instances, she has acted the same way.
There is, among others, the ongoing and very disturbing case of
the Irving Whale. Once more, the minister, through her lack of
openness which, in my opinion, looks more and more like a lack of
competence, is creating very serious problems that threaten the
environment. The issue of the Irving Whale, a total fiasco, is a case
in point.
By refusing to take into account studies made by Marex and
CEF, the minister has embarked on an adventure which is
dangerous for the environment of the gulf and which has already
cost $12 million. This amount represents the total cost initially
forecasted and the barge still lies on the bottom of the gulf.
16272
It must be pointed out that the method chosen is not the safest
one. The operations we saw this summer proved it and smacked
of amateurism. I would also underline that the barge is still
leaking, now more than ever. According to a report of the
Canadian Coast Guard, more than 500 litrres have recently leaked
from the wreck.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The hon. member for
Davenport on a point of order.
Mr. Caccia: Madam Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt, but I
believe that the hon. member is not dealing with the bill presently
before the House, Bill C-94.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I believe you have raised a
matter of debate.
Mrs. Guay: Madam Speaker, there are facts which have to be
brought to light and this is part of the bill. The minister does not
want to go further on this issue as in the case of the bill we are
debating today. She stubbornly refuses to be further advised on
such important decisions that have to be taken. Her reasons for
refusing any new course of action clearly appear to be unfounded.
I would even go further and say that the minister definitely
shows her bad faith on many issues, as we saw during Question
Period in recent days. Her answers to questions relating to the
environment showed her ignorance and incompetence. All she tells
us, and I think it is totally childish and silly, is that, when he was
Minister of the Environment, Mr. Bouchard, our leader, said this
and that, did this, did not do that, and so on. This is how the
minister has been answering our questions for the last two years.
Come on. Let us be serious and exercise a little intellectual rigor.
On any other question, she is big on quotes, which proves that she
is no authority and misinformed on important issues. Frankly, I
think that such behaviour from a deputy prime minister is quite
alarming.
As for the Irving Whale, she rejects the solution recommended in
the Marex study, although it was commissioned by her department
and the Coast Guard-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I recognize the hon.
member for Davenport on a point of order.
Mr. Caccia: Madam Speaker, I am sorry but again I must remind
the member that the bill is about gasoline and the manganese
content of gasoline. It is not about the Irving Whale. I invite the
member to discuss the bill-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Again, this is a matter of
debate.
Mrs. Guay: Madam Speaker, as for the Irving Whale, the
minister says she rejects the solution recommended in the Marex
study, although it was commissioned by her department and the
Coast Guard, because, according to her, this firm has financial
interests in the pumping method it recommended.
Last week, after last summer's failed refloating attempt that cost
us $12 million, the minister said she was rejecting the offer to
strike an expert panel to review the issue, made by the Société pour
vaincre la pollution, or SVP, on account of Daniel Green's financial
interest in this proposal. I recall that, last year, the minister went as
far as claiming in this House that SVP had gone bankrupt. She has
some nerve. What is obvious is that the minister is always trying to
discredit those who think differently from her in order to
compensate for and hide her incompetence and lack of action in
several areas
Discrediting is what the minister does best. On another-
(1735)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order, please. The member
for Davenport, on a point of order.
Mr. Caccia: Madam Speaker, again I am sorry, but it seems to
me that we must adhere to the rule of relevancy. We are debating
Bill C-94.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I would ask the member to
make a connection between her comments and the bill before us.
The member for Gaspé, on a point of order.
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): Madam Speaker, currently the Bloc
Quebecois is the official opposition in Ottawa. Whether they like it
or not, people will have to listen to what we have to say. The
member for Davenport is simply filibustering.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): This is not a point of order.
Resuming debate. The member for Laurentides.
Mrs. Guay: Madam Speaker, if I was allowed to make my
speech, the connection with Bill C-94 would become obvious; I
would ask the member for Davenport to listen for once and stop his
filibustering during my speech. I will respect his to the extent he
will respect mine. Allow me to continue.
To another question I was asking him regarding-
Mr. Caccia: It is about time.
Mrs. Guay: Madam Speaker, could you call the member to
order and ask him to show some respect?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order, please.
Mrs. Guay: I can go on then. I asked the minister another
question concerning the ban on PCB exports to the United States.
The minister said in this House that she was making
representations to the EPA, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
A few days later, we received confirmation from the chair of the
hearings on the PCB issue that the EPA had never heard from our
environment minister on that issue, in spite of the invitation
16273
extended by the EPA to the minister. Just smoke and mirrors once
again, Madam Speaker.
Why is the minister saying such poppycock? Does she really
think Canadians are that naive?
It is easy to see that environmental stakeholders are
disenchanted with the minister's performance. She who was to be
the great champion of the environment became the great
speechmaker on the environment instead. As we say in Quebec, she
is all talk and no action.
Bill C-94 follows this erroneous way of-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The hon. member for
Peterborough, on a point of order.
[English]
Mr. Adams: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
listened to part of this speech on television and I have just arrived
in the House. I was under the impression that we were debating Bill
C-94, the Manganese based Fuel Additives Act. I wonder if I have
arrived at the wrong time.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I would ask the member to
make sure her comments relate to Bill C-94.
The hon. member for Gaspé, on a point of order.
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): Madam Speaker, two liberal members
have now interrupted my colleague. She is doing a good job.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): This is not a point of order
either.
The hon. member for Laurentides.
Mrs. Guay: Madam Speaker, I will go on until my speech is
finished.
Bill C-94-I hope this will please my colleagues-is just one
more example of this improper way of doing our best. The minister
started out with an idea and she will not change her mind, even if
her idea is not the best one. It is impossible to go any further with
other studies and analyses. The minister said no, and her no is
irrevocable. Yet, there is room for debate on the issue of MMT. Let
us look at the arguments both sides are making, and try to find the
best route to follow.
First, we will talk about the MMT lobby, which is composed of
oil companies and Ethyl Corporation. This lobby came to defend
MMT before the standing committee, besides meeting many
members of Parliament.
The MMT lobby tells us that by removing this additive from
gasoline, we will aggravate the problem of urban smog, since we
are increasing the nitrogen oxide emissions by 20 per cent. Health
Canada studies indicate that the MMT additive does not constitute
a major threat for human health.
(1740)
Independent laboratory experiments prove that, contrary to the
statements made by the automobile lobby, MMT used in Canada is
totally compatible with the new onboard diagnostic systems for
pollution control, the OBD-II systems.
Also according to the MMT lobby, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency should reintroduce this additive very soon in
that country. In fact, under an October 20 ruling by the United
States Court of Appeal, District of Columbia, in the case Ethyl v.
Browner, chief administrator of the EPA, the EPA has been
compelled to register MMT as an additive for unleaded gasoline,
something the EPA had refused to do until now. In its ruling, the
court stated:
[English]
On November 30, 1993 the EPA found that MMT had no adverse
effects on automobile emission control systems.
[Translation]
Consequently, the EPA was recognizing de facto that MMT did
not adversely affect pollution control systems. At the refining
stage, MMT allows to reduce some polluting emissions. It would
cost refineries about $100 million in capital and about $10 million
in operating expenses to replace MMT. Plants would then have to
extend the whole refining process. Extra refining costs more
money and pollutes more.
So, these are essentially the arguments made by the MMT lobby.
I want to emphasize that, to substantiate its arguments, only Ethyl
Corporation made a series of experiments on the effect of MMT on
vehicle pollution control devices. You tell us that those tests go
back quite some time and that the same components are no longer
used? That may be, but Ethyl was the only one to conduct those
tests, which seem to prove that MMT does not gum up the systems.
Furthermore, the carmakers' lobby claims that MMT affects the
emission control system and more specifically the electronic
pollutant detection system. In concrete terms, this system uses a
light to indicate that your car's emission control device is
defective.
However, there is no scientific evidence to sustain the theory of
MMT causing a malfunction of this light. The carmakers' lobby
tells us they have evidence, but they have made nothing public to
prove it. Besides, the industry in the United States is only just
beginning to conduct scientific tests to support its claims.
To bring more pressure to bear, the minister, together with the
carmakers' lobby, is claiming that it could cost as much as $3,000
more to buy a car, that guarantees could be reduced, and even that
the famous detection device could be disconnected.
16274
After checking recently, we found that the guarantees on 1996
cars have not yet been changed, contrary to what the minister was
claiming. This pressure can be seen as a form of blackmail on the
part of the industry, but according to the minister, it is serious.
The other major argument used by the minister has to do with the
harmonization of fuel standards in Canada with those in the United
States. Now, as we saw earlier, the U.S. could very soon have the
same MMT rates that we presently have in Canada. Some even talk
about next December, when close to 50 per cent of American
refineries could use MMT.
If this should happen, the minister, who is now talking about
harmonization, would look rather silly. Why not wait a few weeks
and see what happens in the United States? This is what both sides
are saying.
The minister, who naturally tends to lean towards the car
manufacturers' lobbyists, has decided to order this ban, not
because of the toxic or polluting effects of the MMT on health, but
because of its impact on a new electronic system being used in cars.
MMT in itself is not recognized as a toxic or hazardous product
as evidenced by the fact that the minister cannot regulate the use of
this product through the Canadian Environmental Protection Act,
or CEPA, which deals with toxic substances. The minister has no
other alternative but to pass a specific act on the sale of this
product.
In her press release dated April 5, the minister indicates that this
decision follows almost two years of discussions between the oil
industry and the automotive industry. One can wonder about the
relevancy of these discussions and their true value, since the
minister has warned both parties that, if they did not come to an
agreement, an act banning MMT would be passed.
(1745)
In saying so, was the minister not telling the automotive
industry: ``There is no need to discuss this much further, since I
support your position and will legislate on this matter.''
Again, the minister was showing her clear support for the
automotive industry, which does not want to use MMT anymore
and does not seem to support any of the fuel additives. Therefore, I
wonder what will happen to ethanol, a favourite among additives,
for which the government has recently set up a $70 million
investment program.
If the automotive industry does not want to hear about additives,
why would the government want to develop such a product? What a
blatant inconsistency it is to ban one additive while speaking of
developing another one, when the automotive industry does not
want any additives at all.
How can we be sure that the automotive industry will not soon
ask the government to ban ethanol because of its negative effects
on a component or some equipment used in their cars? It is
certainly not easy to rule in favour of one side or the other. The
arguments used look valid. However, the ball is now obviously in
the court of the automotive industry and of the minister who, once
again, has not done her homework in a responsible and transparent
manner.
Granted, the automotive industry knows these systems well but
its concerns about the effects of MMT are not based on scientific
studies. It is important to note that the automotive industry has
made great progress in the exhaust emission control over the past
25 years. According to a study by the Canadian Automobile
Association, the adoption of emission standards has greatly
improved air quality. Indeed, the study reveals that, for every
kilometre driven, a 1970 model polluted as much as 20 cars made
in 1995. As far as I know, all this progress has been made in spite of
the presence of MMT in fuel.
One can give the benefit of the doubt to the automotive industry
as the minister does, but that does not seem enough. I firmly
believe that it would be a great mistake to always give the benefit
of the doubt on environmental issues.
One needs accurate information to make the best decisions. One
must not to be afraid to ask for more. On environmental issues,
asking for too much is better than asking for too little. It is the
future of this planet that is in jeopardy, the survival of our children.
Care must be taken not to make decisions lightly and without
sufficient justification.
The minister has not done so, right from the beginning of her
mandate. I would like to quote an article over the byline of
Terrence Corcoran in the Globe and Mail of October 21, headlined
``Sheila Galileo meets MMT''. It reads as follows:
[English]
Scientific rigour has never been at the heart of the environment movement,
nor does it appear to be the first love of Canada's Environment Minister-In a
speech last Monday, Ms. Copps demonstrated her scientific flair by accusing all
who doubt the existence of the greenhouse effect as ``the same kind of people
who rejected Galileo''.
Now there's nothing deeply offensive about that accusation, except that it
came from Ms. Copps midway through a speech in which any kind of science,
let alone good science, was totally ignored. Speaking to the international panel
on climate change in Montreal, Ms. Copps reviewed a list of ``weather events
from this summer documented by scientists'' to prove the existence of the
greenhouse effect.
Space does not permit a full rundown, but here are some of the items identified
by Sheila Galileo as evidence for the greenhouse effect: the second worst year in
history for forest fires; record rains in Alberta; record electricity production in
Ontario; the death of a half million chickens and turkeys on one August weekend;
wind damage on every property in Oxbow, Saskatchewan; a record number of
16275
icebergs floating off Newfoundland; a steady stream of migraine sufferers, heart
patients and asthmatics admitted to hospital emergency departments.
Ms. Copps said ``these are facts provided by Canada's leading scientists''.
Could be, although the list looks more like the output of a good newspaper
clipping service.
There's already evidence that bad science, or no science at all, drives
environmental politics in Canada, and Ms. Copps is at the leading edge of the
movement. Indeed, her department and the entire Government of Canada are
now up to their test tubes in a murky scientific and political game they've been
playing over a gasoline additive called MMT. In the wake of a ruling yesterday
by a Washington court over MMT use in the United States, there's now a good
chance that Ottawa's entire fuel emissions program is about to go up in a cloud
of smoke, the victim of scientific and political negligence.
(1750)
[Translation]
End of quote, Madam Speaker.
So much for the scientific rigour of the Minister. In light of the
information available at this time, and recent developments in the
US, I feel that delaying adoption of this bill is mandatory. It seems
vital for studies by independent experts to be carried out to set us
completely straight, so that we will have a clear idea of the impact
of MMT-and why not of any other additive such as ethanol-on
pollution control systems. This would be a more appropriate and
more reasonable approach as things stand at the present time.
When the Minister of the Environment is constantly speaking of
harmonization, bragging that this is what her policy is all about, a
lot of questions come to mind. Canada is composed of provinces,
each of which has an environmental policy, each of which has
different needs depending on its industries. Our environment must
be constantly improved, and I am convinced they are all aware of
that.
In Quebec, the environment is the third-ranking priority after
jobs and health. The minister must learn how to listen to people
instead of stubbornly dictating her philosophies to them. The
mistakes in the Department of the Environment have done nothing
but constantly increase under her leadership. Her reputation as a
brawler was normal when she was in the opposition. But now that
she is in power, it is her duty to examine issues thoroughly, carry
out studies when uncertain, and harmonize with the provinces, in
other words forget all that stuff about sustainable development and
the environment.
Let the minister show us, and prove to us, her true desire to make
positive and realistic pro-environment decisions, not politically
dictated ones. It is obvious that she seems determined to move this
bill through at any price. We cannot support it, therefore, because
we feel it lacks a large number of elements for banning MMT in
Canada. In the aftermath of the American decision of October 20,
we find it extremely difficult to support a bill that will no longer
harmonize in the least with the US decisions.
Madam Minister, get back to your books, and you can write a
makeup test later on.
[English]
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I rise
again to take part in the debate on Bill C-94.
First I thank all the witnesses who came before the committee to
discuss and make presentations on this subject. It really was
unfortunate that it was apparent right from the introduction of the
bill and the hearings in committee that members of the government
were not really interested in hearing, listening or learning any of
the facts behind the issue. They were destined to support the
political agenda of the Minister of the Environment or they would
face the wrath of the minister. We on this side of the House
certainly know how intimidating that can be.
From the very beginning it was apparent to me that either one
side or the other on this issue was distorting the facts brought
before us. Therefore my staff and I spent the summer doing
extensive research into the issue. The more we studied, the more
convinced we became that the minister was not so much concerned
about protecting the environment as she was about fulfilling a
political commitment.
I will review some of the facts that led me to this conclusion. On
the issue of the onboard diagnostic computer system, the
contention brought out in committee was the question of whether
or not MMT gums up the OBD II systems.
In December 1993 following the largest fuel additive testing
program in the history of the U.S. EPA, it was concluded that the
use of MMT would not cause or contribute to the failure of any
emission control device or system including onboard diagnostic
systems.
(1755)
The EPA, the U.S. court and subsequently the U.S. Court of
Appeal rejected concerns about the impact of MMT on OBD
systems as presented by U.S. automakers. U.S. automakers have
experienced significant difficulties with the certification of OBD
systems in United States where MMT is not currently used in
unleaded gasoline.
The U.S. EPA and the California Air Resources Board have
recently changed their regulations to allow for certification of
vehicles that do not comply with the OBD II requirements. The
U.S. EPA stated in the federal register that automobile
manufacturers have expressed and demonstrated difficulty in
complying with
16276
every aspect of the OBD requirements. Such difficulty appears
likely to continue into 1996 and 1997 model years.
In Canada, the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association
appears to be blaming OBD II system difficulties on MMT.
MVMA members have lobbied the Canadian government
threatening to disconnect OBD warning systems and pass costs on
to consumers unless the government passes legislation to ban
MMT. The Canadian government appears to have responded to the
threats without noting that vehicle manufacturers have failed to
achieve OBD II certification in the U.S. for most new car models.
Furthermore I should like to know how the minister could
explain her statement that if vehicle manufacturers carry through
on threats to remove OBD systems it would result in a tenfold
increase in vehicle emissions. This is simply representative of the
rhetoric coming from the minister and from that side of the House
with no real facts to back up those statements. This false claim
shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the technical issues
involved and underlines the need for an independent technical
assessment of the MVMA claims.
OBD systems do not reduce emissions on vehicles. OBD is a
monitoring system designed to notify the driver when emission
control equipment does not operate properly. Removal or more
likely the disconnection of OBD systems would only serve to
prevent a dashboard malfunction indicating light from
illuminating, which is exactly what is happening already in the
United States without MMT. No emission control equipment would
be removed from the vehicle.
The issue of sparkplug failure was used by the minister with
great gusto to demonstrate her reason for banning MMT. General
Motors Canada has claimed that MMT is responsible for warranty
claims for sparkplug failure being 17 times higher in Canada than
in the U.S. It is alleged that higher claims are due to manganese
deposits on sparkplugs causing the plug to arc under certain
conditions from electrode to the outer shell rather than from
electrode to electrode.
Arcing leads to sparkplug misfire which can contribute to
drivability problems. The Minister of the Environment has cited
these claims to help justify her proposed legislation to remove
MMT. However she failed to point out that automakers' claims
related to one type of platinum tipped sparkplug used primarily in a
one-engine version used in GM automobiles. The sparkplug in
question was discontinued by GM indicating the problems were
related to the design of the plug, not MMT. No casual link was ever
established between MMT and sparkplug problems and no
warranty data have ever been made public.
To further assess the validity of GM's concerns independent
testing was conducted by the Southwest Research Institute in San
Antonio, Texas, using the platinum tipped long life plugs used in
all 1994 2.2 Chevrolet Cavaliers. The goal of the study initiated
with General Motors Corporation in the U.S. was to determine the
differences between new sparkplug failures and the plugs were
provided by GM.
The sparkplugs were fired under a power supply that increased
output to the plugs in a ramped manner. Current leakage until the
plugs fired was measured and movies were taken to document
whether arcing occurs between electrodes or from electrode to
shell.
The sparkplug test program-
* * *
The House resumed from November 2 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): It being six o'clock,
pursuant to Standing Order 45, the House will now proceed to the
taking of the deferred division at second reading of Bill C-88.
Call in the members.
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 365)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Assadourian
Augustine
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bhaduria
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Cowling
Culbert
DeVillers
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guarnieri
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
Maloney
Marchi
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
16277
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Paradis
Payne
Peric
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Reed
Regan
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Terrana
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young-121
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Gaspé)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cummins
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jennings
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Marchand
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Mercier
Meredith
Morrison
Nunez
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Ramsay
Ringma
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams-57
PAIRED MEMBERS
Beaumier
Bélisle
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blondin-Andrew
Bouchard
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Chan
Collins
Crawford
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
Dhaliwal
Dubé
Dumas
Finestone
Gauthier
Godfrey
Grose
Harb
Jacob
Jordan
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Manley
Marleau
McWhinney
Ménard
O'Brien
Paré
Peters
Pomerleau
Rideout
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
St-Laurent
Stewart (Northumberland)
Thalheimer
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Verran
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the motion
carried. The bill is therefore referred to the Standing Committee on
Industry.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
* * *
[English]
The House resumed from November 3 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-108, an act to amend the National Housing Act,
be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the
amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, the House will now proceed to the taking of a deferred
division on the amendment to Bill C-108, an act to amend the
National Housing Act.
The question is on the amendment.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it I believe
you would find unanimous consent that those members who were
present for the vote on the previous motion be recorded as having
voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members
voting nay on the amendment to second reading of Bill C-108.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Members of the Bloc Quebecois also oppose this
amendment.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: All real Reformers will vote yes to the
amendment, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, all real New Democrats will vote
no.
Mr. Bhaduria: Madam Speaker, I will be voting against this
amendment.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 366)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Chatters
Cummins
Epp
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
16278
Jennings
Johnston
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams-32
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Bachand
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Cowling
Culbert
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Lastewka
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
Maloney
Marchand
Marchi
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Paradis
Payne
Peric
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Reed
Regan
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Terrana
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young-146
PAIRED MEMBERS
Beaumier
Bélisle
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blondin-Andrew
Bouchard
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Chan
Collins
Crawford
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
Dhaliwal
Dubé
Dumas
Finestone
Gauthier
Godfrey
Grose
Harb
Jacob
Jordan
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Manley
Marleau
McWhinney
Ménard
O'Brien
Paré
Peters
Pomerleau
Rideout
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
St-Laurent
Stewart (Northumberland)
Thalheimer
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Verran
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the motion
negatived.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
division on the amendment of Mrs. Picard to Bill C-95, an act to
establish the Department of Health and to amend and repeal certain
acts.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it, I think you
would find that the House agrees that all members who voted on
the motion previously before the House be deemed to have voted
on the motion now before the House. Liberal members will be
voting nay on the amendment to Bill C-95.
Mr. Duceppe: Bloc Quebecois members will vote yea on the
amendment.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Madam Speaker, those Reformers who want to
will vote yes and those who want to vote no can vote no.
Mr. Blaikie: New Democrats present in the House will vote
against the amendment, Madam Speaker.
16279
Mr. Bhaduria: Madam Speaker, I am voting against this
amendment.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 367)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Gaspé)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cummins
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jennings
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Marchand
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Mercier
Meredith
Morrison
Nunez
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -54
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Assadourian
Augustine
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Cowling
Culbert
DeVillers
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guarnieri
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
Maloney
Marchi
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Paradis
Payne
Peric
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Reed
Regan
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Terrana
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young-124
PAIRED MEMBERS
Beaumier
Bélisle
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blondin-Andrew
Bouchard
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Chan
Collins
Crawford
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
Dhaliwal
Dubé
Dumas
Finestone
Gauthier
Godfrey
Grose
Harb
Jacob
Jordan
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Manley
Marleau
McWhinney
Ménard
O'Brien
Paré
Peters
Pomerleau
Rideout
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
St-Laurent
Stewart (Northumberland)
Thalheimer
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Verran
(1830)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the amendment
lost.
>
16280
16280
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Madam Speaker, on
October 19 I questioned the minister of public works regarding
some problems over the summer with harassment of a female
engineer on the job site outside the Peace Tower.
The ministry of public works subsequent to that harassment
rewarded one of the subcontractors with further work, including the
whole of the Centre Block. I was wondering why the minister
would allow his officials to do that. He replied that
``notwithstanding the fact it is beyond the legal ramifications of the
Government of Canada in terms of privity of contract, we will
ensure this kind of behaviour is not tolerated''.
Since that time it has come to my attention that officials at public
works have been closing their eyes to this sort of behaviour for
some time. In fact, this same company, Colonial Builders, and Mr.
Karmash who is the perpetrator on this site, have been active on
other sites in previous summers, including the Kingston military
college and the Kingston penitentiary. Harassment of another
female engineer took place to the point where her supervisor took
over because it was virtually impossible to work with the
subcontractor on the site. He would simply have nothing to do with
a female on his job site.
Public works should have been aware of this pattern of
behaviour, yet it has continued to permit the company and this
individual to do work of very great importance since that time,
including work on the Parliament Buildings.
Public Works officials have not shown much competence or
judgment, not only in this matter but in other matters related to it.
The minister is aware that the female engineer's crew walked off in
sympathy with her plight and were left being owed $165,000 or
thereabouts. Public works officials have not acted there either.
In order to receive pay for work completed, the contractor and
subcontractor have to fill out statutory declarations. They swear
that all work they are billing the government for has been
completed and that all payments have been made. The statutory
declarations could not have been very accurate on the Peace Tower
project because if the declarations were true, the group of workers
who were with Ann Raney and who are still owned some $165,000
would have been paid. Yet the statutory declaration stating that all
accounts are paid and up to date have been submitted and paid by
Public Works Canada.
That they are owed the money is not in dispute. The court has in
fact found in their favour and has permitted a lien to be placed
against the Peace Tower project. Surely that should tell officials at
the department of public works that something is wrong. The
minister should be aware and should be making certain that he
finds out why his officials are so lax in their duties. Not only does
public works appear to support and justify the harassment of
women on the worksite, but it appears to be ignoring the basic
management and accounting procedures that are its role as well.
I call on the minister to assure us that his department will act
honourably and see to it that justice is done in this case. These
workers who had the strength of character to do the right thing in
resisting the unfairness of the harassment against their female
engineer must not be the only Canadians who resist harassment of
females on the worksite.
The public and this House expect nothing less than fair treatment
and justice from our government departments and from their
officials. The minister must act now.
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I thank the hon. member for Mackenzie for giving the government
a chance to respond to this matter because it is a very important
subject.
[Translation]
First it is a matter of taking stock. Public Works and Government
Services Canada concluded a contract with Fuller Construction, the
principal contractor in the Peace Tower restoration project.
Therefore, this department must ensure the quality of the work
being done on the Peace Tower and that the work done by Fuller
Construction, the general contractor, meets very high standards.
[English]
The issue raised by the member for Mackenzie concerns a
dispute between two subcontractors working on the project,
Pro-Tech Building Restoration and Colonial Building Restoration.
The dispute, based on the non-payment of wages and harassment,
has resulted in Pro-Tech being removed from the job by Colonial.
An employee of Pro-Tech, Ms. Ann Raney, has made allegations of
gender discrimination.
[Translation]
In this matter, the government has a contractual link with Fuller
Construction only, whereas the dispute involves the two
subcontractors: Pro-Tech and Colonial. Public Works therefore has
no direct involvement with the subcontractors working on the
project.
16281
[English]
However, the contract with Fuller Construction, like any other
major work contract, includes an anti-discrimination clause. As I
said before, Public Works Canada's contract specifications do not
permit discrimination in hiring in the workplace.
[Translation]
As the general contractor, Fuller is responsible for settling this
dispute.
[English]
I am pleased to inform the House that progress is being made and
that the general contractor has taken steps to ensure that a solution
is reached in the very near future. Both parties have agreed in
principle to resolve the alleged discrimination issue through a third
party independent arbitrator. Until the issue is resolved, the party
alleged to have harassed has been removed from the job by Fuller.
[Translation]
The member for Mackenzie also raised the question about
ownership of the tools. I would like to take this opportunity to set
the record straight. On August 18, 1995, tools worth $5,000 were
taken from the site. These tools remain in the hands of the
Ottawa-Carleton police.
[English]
I would like to assure members of the House that complaints of
the nature raised by Ms. Raney are taken very seriously by the
minister of public works. His department does not tolerate
harassment or discrimination.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed
adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.39 p.m.)