CONTENTS
Tuesday, November 7, 1995
Bill C-108. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 16283
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 16289
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 16293
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 16297
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 16300
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 16301
Division on motion deferred 16304
Bill C-95. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 16304
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 16304
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 16317
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 16317
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 16318
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 16320
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 16320
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 16321
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 16322
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 16322
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 16322
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 16322
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 16322
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 16323
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 16323
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 16324
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 16325
Bill C-95. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 16328
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 16332
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 16335
Division on motion deferred 16337
Consideration resumed of motion for third reading 16337
Bill C-339. Consideration resumed of second reading 16349
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time andreferred to a
committee.) 16354
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 16355
16283
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, November 7, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
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 two petitions.
* * *
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to
table in both official languages a report entitled ``The Special
Commission on the Restructuring of the Reserves''.
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition which
has been circulating all across Canada. It has been signed by a
number of Canadians from Deloraine, Manitoba.
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 that the Income Tax Act discriminates
against families that make the choice to provide care in the home
for 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.
(1005 )
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the privilege to present two petitions signed by people in my
constituency who were outraged over the murder of Melanie
Carpenter and who continue to press for changes to the criminal
justice system to address what they feel are inadequacies in the
system.
The petitioners call on Parliament to permit the use of
post-sentence detention orders and to limit the freedoms of high
risk offenders. If Parliament hears this petition, innocent people
like Melanie Carpenter will remain alive, and dangerous ones like
her murderer, if he were still alive, would stay behind bars.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from November 6 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.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-108 at
second reading, a bill to amend the National Housing Act.
I can speak from firsthand experience of the federal
government's concern in social housing matters. I am pleased to
represent the riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore where the
government is funding projects such as Kilcooley gardens co-op
and William Kinnett co-op housing, housing residents who are
single parents and persons with disabilities.
16284
I am proud to be part of a government that supports non-profit
housing which promotes the security of tenure and a sense of
community among its members. I can also speak to the benefits
of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's mortgage loan
statistics.
In my riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore from 1992 to October
1995 a total of 1,567 homebuyers took advantage of CMHC's
mortgage loan insurance. Of these, 708 were first time homebuyers
who were able to gain access to their home under the CMHC's first
home loan insurance, the 5 per cent down program as we call it.
I am pleased to speak in support of the bill because I understand
the crucial importance of it to ensure that CMHC can continue its
mortgage loan insurance activity.
I am bewildered why certain members of the House are not able
to support the bill. I can only assume it is because they do not fully
understand the provisions of the bill and cannot appreciate the
important role mortgage loan insurance will play in helping
Canadians to gain access to decent affordable housing.
Many of my colleagues have already spoken to this issue.
However, it is obvious the message has not gotten through. Allow
me to spell it out one more time more clearly for the benefit of
those having difficulty understanding why the bill is important to
Canadians.
NHA mortgage loan insurance makes home ownership
accessible to millions of Canadians regardless of where they live.
This access is under similar terms and conditions with the smallest
feasible down payment and at the lowest cost to borrowers. CMHC
is able to provide this insurance at no cost to the government.
Bill C-108 is required in order for CMHC to continue to
underwrite home mortgage loan insurance within the legislative
limit. Let me be very clear on this point. If CMHC cannot continue
its mortgage loan insurance activity, thousands of Canadians will
not have access to home ownership. It is as simple and as serious as
that.
(1010 )
NHA mortgage loan insurance works like this. Most lenders
cannot make a mortgage for more than 75 per cent of the value of a
property without mortgage loan insurance. This means those not
able to save a down payment of 25 per cent would be locked out of
home ownership without mortgage loan insurance. NHA mortgage
loan insurance provides approved lenders with insurance against
borrower default or residential mortgage loans.
NHA mortgage loan insurance allows Canadians to take out a
mortgage with an NHA approved lender with a down payment of
only 10 per cent of the property value or 5 per cent for first time
homebuyers.
NHA mortgage loan insurance requires the payment of
application fees and insurance premiums. It is not just handed out
for free by the government. These premiums are charged as a
percentage of the loan based on the amount of the loan and its ratio
to the value of the property. Premiums are set so as to ensure the
fund always contains enough to cover any claims.
Since mortgage loan insurance protects lenders against default
losses, they are able to charge the borrower the lowest possible rate
of interest, which means mortgage loan insurance plays a critical
role in reducing the cost of home ownership for Canadians. It also
plays a critical role in ensuring relative equal access to mortgage
financing in all parts of the country. This access is made possible
through the cross-subsidization of higher risk business against
lower risk business. In this way the mortgage insurance fund is
self-financing. In other words, it does not cost the government
anything to provide mortgage loan insurance to lenders so
Canadians can have access to decent affordable housing.
We recognized a few years ago that even a 10 per cent down
payment was difficult for some people to manage which is why the
government introduced the first home loan insurance initiative in
1992 and reduced the minimum required down payment to 5 per
cent for first time homebuyers. The initiative was introduced for a
two-year period but was extended for an additional five years until
1999.
As many members will know, this 5 per cent down initiative has
been a tremendous success in helping to increase home ownership
in Canada. By further reducing the minimum required down
payment, home ownership has moved from a dream to a reality for
the many Canadians who can afford monthly mortgage payments
but who are having trouble saving for a down payment.
Certain members might not be aware there are Canadians who
cannot afford a down payment of 25 per cent of the price of a home,
even the most modest home. Are there members in the House who
would refuse these Canadians a chance to become homeowners? I
must assume my colleagues are not so out of touch with the
economic realities facing many Canadians that they are not aware
of the difficulties some people have in raising enough money for a
convenient 25 per cent down payment. This is a reality for many
people. That does not mean we should exclude them from access to
decent housing. The government supports families and individuals
who aspire to be homeowners.
We know many Canadians have a strong desire to become
homeowners and we understand the tremendous importance of
helping them to do just that. We know how important a home is to
people not only in terms of an investment but for the impact on
their quality of life.
(1015 )
When people are well housed, they are better able to participate
in their communities. They enjoy a greater sense of control over
their lives. It is no surprise that Canadians are willing to make great
sacrifices to achieve home ownership. Saving for a down payment
16285
is a major undertaking, yet Canadians do it willingly because they
want to fulfil their dream of owning a home, a place of their own.
Perhaps it has been a long time since some members of the
House had to worry about such mundane matters as saving money
to buy a home. Let me tell them that a down payment even on a
starter home represents a substantial amount of money for many
Canadians. It is not easy to save for a down payment these days.
Does that mean we should just close the door on those people,
tell them and their children that they cannot own a home? What
kind of a country would we have if we did that? Certainly not a
country I would want to live in I can assure you.
Home ownership is part of the Canadian dream, a dream which
this government believes should be shared with all Canadians, not
just a privileged few. We believe that all Canadians deserve the
chance to become homeowners. We believe that the federal
government should continue to play a role in helping them to do so.
And we believe that NHA mortgage loan insurance is the best way
for us to fulfil that important role at no cost to the government.
Millions of Canadians depend on NHA mortgage loan insurance.
In fact, members of the House will be pleased to learn that more
than 3.5 million Canadian households have been helped to
purchase a home since the government initiated NHA mortgage
loan insurance in 1946. That figure represents nearly one-third of
Canada's housing stock. In 1994 alone, CMHC provided mortgage
insurance for 40 per cent of all residential mortgages in Canada.
That represents over 300,000 housing units.
In the riding of Calgary Southwest for example, from 1992 to
October of this year, 5,600 households accessed home ownership
through NHA insurance. Two thousand, two hundred and fifty of
these households were first time buyers taking advantage of the
lower down payment to become homeowners.
This year alone, more than 1,000 homeowner units were insured
in Calgary Southwest under the NHA with over half, 538, being
first time homebuyers. Obviously CMHC mortgage loan insurance
is a huge success, a very popular vehicle for Canadians to gain
access to home ownership.
Today we are presenting a bill to ensure that Canadians can
continue to have access to home ownership, a bill that will ensure
the continued operation of NHA mortgage loan insurance, a bill
which is good news for all Canadians, a bill which this government
would like to see passed.
Those members who oppose this bill should keep in mind the
disservice they are doing to Canadians. Are Reform members
aware that 63 per cent of the adult population living in rental
accommodations plan on buying a home? Are they aware that 40
per cent of all residential mortgages finalized in 1994 were NHA
insured?
Does that party know that 230,000 first time homebuyers would
not have been able to purchase a home if not for the first home loan
insurance initiative made possible by NHA mortgage loan
insurance? Do they know that new construction to the end of
October 1994 totals more than 24,000 units, including single
detached homes, apartments, row houses and manufactured
homes? Do they not realize the tremendous economic
opportunities, especially the significant employment generation,
resulting from all this activity, opportunities that would have been
lost if not for NHA insurance?
As I have stated, the mortgage loan insurance has enjoyed
overwhelming popularity over the years precisely because it is so
crucial to helping Canadians enjoy the benefits of home ownership.
(1020 )
Opposing this bill means opposing the expectations of
Canadians to become homeowners. Some might argue that the
government should get out of the business of mortgage loan
insurance and leave it to private industry. A little bit of thought on
that subject would turn up some reasons why it is not a good idea to
leave this important area to the private sector alone.
First, without CMHC providing mortgage insurance, Canadians
would be at the mercy of a private sector monopoly. Higher prices
and fewer choices would be the result. Housing would then be less
affordable, especially for the first time homebuyers.
Second, we know from past practices of private insurers that
homeowners in all parts of the country would not have access to
mortgage insurance. What would happen to the many Canadians
living in communities which the private sector would refuse to
serve?
Historically we know that private insurers have underserved
rural areas. If NHA mortgage loan insurance were not available in
rural communities, many rural Canadians would have to leave
those areas in order to access home ownership because there would
be areas which the private insurer would not want to serve, make no
mistake about it. What would happen to the people living there?
Quite simply, they would have very limited access to home
ownership.
As long as CMHC is around to provide equal access to mortgage
loan insurance, we do not have to travel that ugly road. With
CMHC in the industry, Canadians have continued access to low
cost financing. Canadians living in areas of the country that the
16286
private insurers will not or cannot serve are able to obtain housing
financing at relatively equal terms and conditions.
It should be obvious to members that competition is the best way
to keep prices at the lowest possible level to encourage innovation
in the mortgage industry to meet the changing needs of Canadian
housing finance consumers.
Millions of Canadians have benefited from NHA mortgage loan
insurance in the past. Thousands continue to benefit each year.
Members of the opposition should clearly understand and support
this bill. I have to wonder why they are having such difficulty with
this very simple issue.
The federal government has a constitutional responsibility for
banking and finance. CMHC mortgage insurance and guarantee are
a demonstration that the federal government is fulfilling this
responsibility. Without CMHC there would be a federal policy
vacuum in the system of housing finance. The result would be
unequal access to home loans across the country. Furthermore,
marginal borrowers could pay more for low down payment
mortgages or have no access to financing altogether.
What is the motivation of those who question the crucial
importance of NHA mortgage insurance? Surely it cannot be to
save the federal government money. CMHC operates its mortgage
insurance fund at no cost to the government. CMHC insurance is
provided at no cost to the Canadian taxpayer. I repeat this. CMHC
is required to achieve self-sufficiency strictly from the premiums
and fees that it charges. CMHC is not part of the problem. In fact, it
is part of the solution.
Members might be interested to learn that CMHC has returned to
the Government of Canada over $1 billion since its incorporation in
1946. In addition, in 1992, $55 million was contributed to the
government from the mortgage insurance fund.
We in Canada are fortunate to be one of the best housed nations
in the world. There can be no doubt that NHA mortgage loan
insurance has had a significant role to play in bringing us to that
enviable state. If we are to maintain that high standard, CMHC
must be able to continue providing NHA mortgage loan insurance
so that Canadians will have relatively equal access to low cost
mortgage financing today and in the future.
Yes, we are fortunate to have such a high standard of housing in
the country. Over the years, with the leadership of CMHC in the
housing sector, Canada has developed a broad range of housing
expertise in the public and private sectors as well as in the
academic community. We are willing to share that expertise with
countries all over the world. Representatives from a variety of
countries come to Canada to learn about our operations because
they believe that we have not one of the best, but the best system of
public mortgage loan insurance in the world and they want to learn
about it.
(1025)
I want to conclude by saying that CMHC involvement in the
international arena is not limited to helping other countries develop
mortgage insurance, it also shares and explores possibilities in
many other areas. I ask all members to support Bill C-108, which
will make it possible for all Canadians to have their greatest dream
fulfilled: owning a home.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
confirm what I think I understood, so I would like to ask the
following question. I believe this loan insurance is self-financing
and self-sustaining and does not cost the government anything. I
want to make sure that I have understood that correctly.
The other point which I would like the parliamentary secretary to
mention once again is this. How will this help Canadians in terms
of housing? I believe that needs to be repeated because I do not
think it is sufficiently clear in the minds of people.
I would ask my colleague to clarify those two points.
Ms. Augustine: Mr. Speaker, those two questions cover the crux
of Bill C-108.
It is important for everyone to understand that there is no cost to
the government. Actually, a benefit is derived from that
involvement.
It is also important to note that the United Nations has acclaimed
Canada as the best country in the world in which to live. We must
ensure that quality of life. What goes into that quality of life?
Accessible, affordable, decent housing and home ownership.
Therefore it is important for us to continue to have the necessary
mortgages, loans and availability of funds. With the minimum
down payment, individuals will have the opportunity to access
housing and all of the things that come with having a roof over
one's head and providing for one's family.
It is important that we as a government continue the financing
and support the National Housing Act and the CMHC to ensure that
we provide loans to families to access housing.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question concerns the insurance program. I understand that there
are two programs: one is offered by CMHC and one is offered by a
private organization.
The hon. member is adamant in telling us that there is no cost to
the government. I am trying to understand why the government is
involved.
I was talking the other day about the Small Business Loans Act,
which again is money being channelled through bureaucrats at no
cost to the government. I am trying to understand what benefits are
being offered through this program if they are also being offered
through the private sector.
16287
(1030 )
If there is no cost to the government, why is the government
involved in cycling the money through bureaucrats by charging
people who buy houses to compensate the lenders who have
mortgages that go into default? Why is the government even in the
business? The private sector can do it just as well, just as
efficiently, and under the rules there is no cost to the government.
Why is the government even involved if there is no cost to the
government and the private sector can do it better?
Ms. Augustine: Mr. Speaker, I thought I addressed in my
statement as part of this debate why I think the private sector
cannot do it better and also the constitutional responsibility for
banking and finance, which responsibility rests with the federal
government.
CMHC mortgage insurance and guarantee are a demonstration
that we are fulfilling that responsibility. To leave it up to the private
sector, we would have a patchwork. As I said earlier in my
statement, there would be regions and areas of this country where
the private sector would find it not viable to do business.
When we are looking at our country from coast to coast to coast,
it is important for us to recognize that if we are looking for equality
and access for all Canadians, no matter where they live, rural,
urban, et cetera, we should provide the avenues and the support so
that we do not leave this solely to the private sector, whose bottom
line is always dollars.
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches-Woodbine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have no doubt of the importance of the federal role in housing. It is
not that long ago that modest income Canadians were able to buy a
modest first home, but that is no longer the case. Finding a large
chunk of money to put down is no longer possible.
I know there are still members on the opposite benches who have
problems with this. I would like to know if the hon. member could
give us the national benefits for the federal government investing
in this area. It is important to look at not just regions or certain
areas where there is accessibility to housing, but at the national
interest as well, in terms of ensuring that modest income Canadians
are able to buy modest homes for the first time in their lives, which
gives them a sense of some form of stability. Would the hon.
member do that for us?
Ms. Augustine: Mr. Speaker, I will focus on one aspect, and that
is the provision for assistance given to social housing.
The federal government continues to provide $2 billion annually
in social housing assistance to support the more than 661,000
existing units across this country. Over a million low income
Canadians whose housing needs cannot be met through the private
sector market benefit from this assistance. This housing assists
some of the most disadvantaged members of our society, including
seniors on fixed incomes, aboriginal people, persons with
disabilities, families led by single parents, social assistance
recipients, and the working poor. It is important to note that this
support, which is also part of the debate here today, cannot solely
be left to the private sector. CMHC activities contribute to that
stable supply of affordable housing, which increases the economic
benefits for all Canadians and provides our quality of life.
CMHC's research demonstration and information transfer
activities improve housing and living conditions and make the
housing market more efficient and competitive. New technology,
housing technology, building science, and promoting good living
environments all provide us with safe, healthy, and sustainable
development. These are all part of the work of CMHC and the
research that is being done in that area.
(1035)
When we talk about support that is given to the whole issue of
the CMHC mortgage insurance fund and the support it needs, it is
important to note not only the quality of life but also the science
and technology aspect, which provides employment for Canadians.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak to Bill C-108, an act to
amend the National Housing Act. This is a very brief bill, just four
lines long, but the impact is significant.
I listened to my colleague's debate, and her argument is basically
that CMHC is going to turn off the tap. That is not true. This bill is
about raising CMHC's loan limit from its present $100 billion to
$150 billion. We are not talking about limiting what is already
there. The pot is huge, $100 billion. That is $100,000 million that
CMHC has to deal with presently. This bill would raise it by
another $50 billion.
We object to that because of the state of the country. This
country is now $564 billion in debt. We cannot continue to carry on
programs that are going to cost the government money. I object to
my colleague's statement that this does not cost the country. It does
indeed cost the country.
If we are going to address our debt, the first thing we must do
when we are in a hole is stop digging. Right now this bill continues
to dig the hole. We cannot increase our debt any more. The country
is broke. Let me repeat that: we are broke. This bill is going to add
more liability to the country. It does not stop anything. It does not
stop the $100 billion that is already in the pot. It is an increase.
I would like to comment on the experiences of New Zealand. We
were briefed on this bill by CMHC and I asked what is CMHC's
ongoing liability, because it is into mortgages 5, 10, 15 and 20
years ahead. It does not know. Current accounting practices say
that you only have to be five years ahead. That is the window. I find
16288
it incredible that a corporation dealing with this amount of money
does not know its total liability.
New Zealand put in legislation which states that every year the
government has to publish all liabilities of the government and all
crown corporations. It was a real eye opener, because a number of
areas like CMHC had to disclose exactly what their liability was.
Right now CMHC is not doing that.
Another concern we have is that the government is sending
mixed messages. It wants to decentralize. The Prime Minister has
said that. We had a referendum in Quebec the other day that was
about decentralization. Yet the bill goes in exactly the opposite
direction. It enshrines more power into the federal government at a
time when the federal government should be passing its powers
down to the provinces.
Canadians want a smaller federal government. We are
overgoverned, overregulated. Business is telling us to get out of
their faces and let business do what business does best, run their
business. The best thing the government can do is get its house in
order. This bill goes in exactly the opposite direction.
I offer to my colleagues across the way a 20-point plan to
decentralize the federal government. In fact Preston Manning
spoke at the Canadian Club last week and got a standing ovation
from the business people who recognized that a number of points of
duplication between the federal and provincial governments have
to end. Environment, natural resources, culture, and housing
should all be done at the provincial level.
(1040)
Private enterprise is already into the mortgage business. CMHC
is already into it to the tune of $100 billion. There is no need to
increase it by another $50 billion. One hundred billion dollars is
just fine, thank you very much. Let private enterprise do what it
does best and deal with this issue.
My colleague was saying that this does not cost the government
any money. Let me remind you about the downturn in the early
eighties. We can all recall that people in the housing market in
Toronto, Vancouver, and Winnipeg were walking into their banks,
dropping the keys on the desk and saying: ``Take it''. Because of
the downturn in the market, their mortgage was worth more than
their house. If that happens, ladies and gentlemen, guess who is
going to carry the can? The Canadian government.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): With the greatest respect to
ladies and gentlemen, I would remind members to address the
Chair. Clearly I am of one gender and not the other. I think it is far
safer for our debates to go through the Chair.
Mr. Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, my apologies. I shall certainly go
through the Chair.
People will remember the number of people who walked away
from their mortgages back in the eighties. The government,
CMHC, had to pick up the tab. That is what will happen in this case
if there is a market downturn.
To say that there is no cost to the government is completely
wrong. There may not be today, but with the volatile interest rates
and with the Quebec situation the money markets are very unstable.
There is an excellent potential that this could end up hurting
Canada, hurting the government, and costing us money.
Another point in the bill that concerns me is paragraph (b),
which refers to ``any additional amounts authorized by Parliament
for the purposes of this section under an appropriation act or any
other act of Parliament''. This concerns me, because I am not sure
whether additional funds would come back to this House or
whether in fact we are talking order in council. That concerns me
greatly. If it comes back to this House, that is fine. If it goes to
cabinet, that is not fine. Then we are not sure what is going on
behind closed doors.
I would like to conclude by saying that I do not believe this
government is listening. We are broke. CMHC is already in to the
tune of $100 billion. We object to putting Canadians further in
debt. That is the reason Reform will oppose this bill.
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have been listening with great interest to members of the Reform
Party digressing on this bill. To date all of them have led Canadians
who are listening to us to believe that this extra $50 billion in
liability insurance would be added to the deficit and the national
debt that exists already. This is absolutely false.
My question for the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is: In
terms of numbers, how much is it going to cost the Government of
Canada with this new mortgage insurance fund?
Mr. Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, the amount will depend on exactly
how bad the downturn in the market is. When people walked away
from their mortgages in the early eighties, the difference between
the value of the house and the mortgage is what CMHC had to pick
up.
I cannot give a number. It is going to depend entirely on how
much interest rates go up and how many people walk away from
their mortgages. It could be a very large number, in the billions of
dollars.
(1045 )
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
previous statement was made by a member of the House. When we
questioned the idea of turning this kind of enterprise over to the
private sector, the reply was that it was not viable in some areas for
16289
the private sector to do it. That means if it is not viable then it must
cost. Why would the private sector not do it if it does not cost?
Does the hon. member agree that if the private sector is saying in
some areas it is not viable there is a cost that is recognized by that
sector?
Mr. Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, of course there is a cost. CMHC has
nearly 3,000 employees. They are not counting the cost of running
the operation. A private insurance company does not have that cost.
The cost to the Canadian people is clearly there.
I have difficulty with a member's comments earlier when she
said there really was not any cost to the government. She said they
were going into areas that were not viable. They cannot have both.
It is either viable and we are making a profit, or if CMHC is going
in there and it is not viable somebody is losing money. Guess who?
It is the Canadian people.
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches-Woodbine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member across has made a great to-do about what it costs
the government but he has not told us what that is. Perhaps we
should put some facts on the table.
Concerning the CMHC's mortgage insurance fund, the
premiums charged by the corporation in addition to the value of the
property assist in covering the liability. That is why the fund has
been more than self-sustaining. It has thus far returned $55 million
to the government. The fact of the matter is that it is
self-sustaining. It has not cost us.
We should have figures on the table when accusatory statements
are made.
Mr. Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, I guess any accountant can make
figures talk and I can certainly talk to members opposite.
CMHC has been self-sustaining in the past few years. It was
losing buckets of money until it got its house in order. If there is a
downturn in interest rates it will cost us more buckets of money.
Clearly they are talking out of both sides of their faces.
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, is the hon.
member aware that approximately one-third of the housing stock in
the country has been built with the assistance of National Housing
Act insured financing? In other words, without this kind of
financing, one-third of the houses with all the benefits and all the
spinoff effects they had for the economy would not have been built.
Is the member for Comox-Alberni aware that 3,944 of his
constituents have purchased homes using funds insured by CMHC
since 1992? Is he aware that 917 of his constituents have purchased
homes taking advantage of CMHC's first home loan insurance
program since 1992?
Mr. Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct.
However the bill increases the numbers. We are saying the $100
billion already in the pot created the numbers the member just
stated. They are absolutely correct.
We are opposed to increasing that amount by another $50 billion.
We are not opposed to having the $100 billion or CMHC doing
business as it is presently doing. We are opposed to increasing the
liability limit.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, coming from downtown Toronto I
have to stand to defend the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation vigorously. It represents in the greater Toronto area
not just support for those in the home building industry. It also
sends a signal of confidence to all other sectors of the economy,
from the carpet makers to the makers of stoves, refrigerators and
the various accoutrements that go into putting a home or an
apartment together. Quite frankly those spinoffs have an effect on
every region of the country.
(1050)
When we calculate the contribution of Canada Mortgage and
Housing we must not forget its contribution to all spinoffs in the
economy.
Mr. Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
comment. It is agreed that CMHC is a benefit to the economy,
absolutely. We do not dispute that. The difficulty we have is upping
the ante.
We recognize where CMHC has been and will continue to be. To
this point in time it is fine. The country is broke. Right now we
cannot see increasing the ante by $50 billion. We think it
inappropriate at this point in time.
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as my
colleagues know, the purpose of the bill is to increase the ceiling
for mortgage loan insurance under the National Housing Act. This
will enable Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to continue
underwriting home mortgage loan insurance within the legislative
limit.
The bill is an administrative bill. Bill C-108 will increase the
existing limit on outstanding loan insurance from the current $100
billion to $150 billion. The bill also includes a provision to increase
the ceiling further through appropriation in the future.
Members of the House should know that CMHC loan insurance
is self-financing and self-sustaining and does not cost the
government anything. Moreover, it has great benefits for the
country.
The mortgage insurance fund is regularly evaluated according to
rigorous insurance principles. It is fully adequate to cover all
insured losses as well as all overhead.
16290
[Translation]
The amendments in this bill deal with administrative matters,
but they must be adopted to allow the CMHC to continue to provide
mortgage insurance. Allow me to explain briefly how important
this bill is for Canadians.
[English]
The desire to own a home remains strong among Canadians. Yet
many people who can afford the monthly mortgage payments are
still unable to access home ownership because they are finding it
difficult to save for a down payment for conventional loans.
[Translation]
Because the CMHC assumes the risks if borrowers fail to meet
their obligations, approved mortgage lenders can loan money to
more Canadians. By reducing the down payment required to buy a
house, the loan insurance program allows more middle income
households to have access to home ownership. This is an essential
element of the system to ensure that all Canadians, wherever they
live, can have the same access to the mortgage loans they need to
buy adequate and affordable housing.
[English]
Let me give an idea of the extent to which Canadians depend on
mortgage loan insurance to fulfil their dream of owning a home.
My colleagues may be interested to learn that this means
approximately 40 per cent of the residential mortgage stock in
Canada involved financing by CMHC mortgage insurance last
year.
Without mortgage loan insurance Canadians who do not have a
25 per cent down payment would generally never have access to
home ownership.
[Translation]
The CMHC mortgage loan insurance has already proven flexible
enough to allow for innovative housing financing. This is an
essential feature given the constant evolution of borrowers' needs
and of the markets meeting these needs.
(1055)
In 1987, the program was modified to insure junior mortgage
loans, an innovation especially helpful to those needing additional
funds for renovations.
[English]
In the following year the chattel loan insurance program was
introduced as a five-year experiment to cover loans made on
mobile homes and to help people who choose this kind of
affordable home ownership. The coverage for mobile homes has
now been made a regular part of the mortgage insurance program
as per the announcement made by the minister responsible for the
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation at the beginning of this
year.
In 1992 the mortgage insurance program was expanded to
accommodate a reduced down payment for first time homebuyers,
making home ownership even more accessible to moderate income
households. This program, called the first home loan insurance
program, has provided Canadians with their entry point to home
ownership. Again I reiterate to my hon. colleagues that the success
of the initiative has been achieved without cost to the government.
[Translation]
We want to ensure that the CMHC can continue to provide this
assistance to the housing market. This is the intent of the bill before
us today. The CMHC is constantly reviewing and making regular
changes to the mortgage loan program in order to make it more
effective and convenient for both approved lenders and home
buyers.
[English]
By exploring new housing finance options for Canadians, we are
looking to promote greater choices, lower the cost, increase
accessibility of housing finance and assist borrowers to meet their
financing needs within their own resources.
[Translation]
The CMHC will continue to encourage innovation and creativity
in residential financing through the mortgage insurance fund, in
order to improve access to home ownership for all Canadians.
The private housing market is now in a position to meet the
needs of the vast majority of Canadian households. There is no
question that the CMHC mortgage loan insurance played a crucial
role in this achievement. The CMHC mortgage loan insurance
program had a record year in 1994 in terms of volume. Several
unexpected factors led to a significant increase in activity last year.
Mortgage interest rates fell to their lowest level in 30 years, a level
that was much lower than expected. The low inflation rate kept
house prices stable and affordable. In addition, the rapid, consistent
success of incentive policies, including the loan insurance program
for home buyers and the home buyers' plan, helped generate a
record level of insurance activity last year.
[English]
When the Mortgage Insurance Company of Canada stopped
underwriting new mortgage insurance business in April 1993,
CMHC had to assume 100 per cent of residential mortgage
insurance activity. Furthermore a greater proportion of all
mortgages has been insured by CMHC in recent years. In 1994,
CMHC insured 40 per cent of all residential mortgages initiated, up
from 22 per cent in 1991.
Because there is some lag time between insuring loans and
receiving the reports from approved lenders, it was only in 1995
that the figures for 1994 were all compiled. At that time it was
realized that the $100 billion maximum aggregate loan insurance
16291
currently stipulated in the NHA had been exceeded. For this reason,
provisions of the bill are effective starting in 1994.
(1100 )
I hope members will see fit to give swift passage to Bill C-108 so
that CMHC can continue to promote access to home ownership
through mortgage loan insurance.
[Translation]
Through its mortgage loan insurance program, CMHC continues
to make housing more accessible for Canadians. The Corporation is
also working to improve housing affordability. Through CMHC,
the federal government is committed to a stable supply of
affordable and accessible housing that increases economic
opportunities for all Canadians.
CMHC's market housing programs promote affordable housing
and equal access to financing through financial instruments such as
mortgage loan insurance.
[English]
Moreover, CMHC provides mortgage insurance to all
Canadians, regardless of where they live, at the smallest feasible
down payment and the lowest cost.
To improve access to an affordable form of housing, CMHC also
provides mortgage insurance for manufactured houses and mobile
homes. In January of this year the hon. David Dingwall announced
an expanded chattel loan insurance program, CLIP, that includes a
resale of manufactured housing units.
CMHC is also contributing to making housing more affordable
through better housing regulations. The affordability and choice
today program funded by CMHC encourages regulatory innovation
in municipalities across Canada. The ACT program encourages the
housing industry and municipalities to work in partnership to
improve housing affordability and choice.
More than 80 ACT projects are developing a wide range of
practical approaches to streamlining approval processes,
developing new forms of affordable housing, facilitating in-fill and
conversion and adopting alternative development and building
standards.
As I have said, Bill C-108 is an administrative bill. As my
colleagues know, the bill is important in ensuring CMHC can
continue to offer mortgage loan insurance to Canadians.
[Translation]
I would like to take a few minutes to talk about a complementary
initiative, first home loan insurance, introduced by CMHC in
February 1992, to make home ownership even more accessible.
Earlier this year, the hon. David Dingwall announced that the
maximum eligible house prices-
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): When referring to another
member in the Chamber we basically have two options, either by
riding or by portfolio. I know sometimes there can be omissions
but the same name has come up more than once already. Therefore
I simply remind the hon. member for Halifax West.
Mr. Regan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that reminder. I
apologize for the error.
[Translation]
Earlier this year, the Minister of Public Works announced that
the maximum eligible house prices for first home loan insurance
were increased in 30 communities across the country. This
initiative allows more first time homebuyers to purchase a home
with a down payment of as little as five per cent. Anyone who buys
or builds a home in Canada as their principal residence is eligible
for the lower down payment, as long as they have not owned a
home at any time during the last five years.
[English]
First home loan insurance was initially in effect for a two-year
period but was extended for an additional five years until 1999. The
5 per cent down initiative has been a major success in helping to
increase home ownership in Canada. That speaks for itself as to the
importance of the bill.
(1105 )
The statistics also speak for themselves. Since November 1993
over 210,000 Canadian households have taken advantage of the
lower down payment to become the proud owners of either a new
or existing home. In April 1994 a survey of Canadians who bought
a home with less than 10 per cent down showed that 72 per cent of
them would not have been able to purchase their home when they
did without the reduced down payment. That says a lot.
The first home loan insurance initiative is constantly being
monitored to ensure it continues to meet the needs of Canadians.
CMHC is committed to helping Canadians who desire to own a
home and who have the proven financial management capability to
do so. First home loan insurance is an excellent example of
CMHC's ability to adapt its mortgage loan insurance activity to
ensure Canadians can enjoy the benefits of home ownership.
As I have stated, Bill C-108 is an administrative bill to facilitate
the continuation of mortgage loan insurance under the National
Housing Act. CMHC's mortgage loan insurance, which provides
relatively equal access to Canadians throughout the country, is
important to achieving that goal. This is one of the major factors
16292
which distinguishes CMHC's operation from private mortgage loan
insurance operations.
Without CMHC's commitment to providing mortgage loan
insurance in the small communities of the country, places that
private insurers have not traditionally wanted to serve, many
Canadians might not be able to buy a home.
[Translation]
Our government knows just how much Canadians value home
ownership. It represents a major portion of the wealth accumulated
by households. For some, it is a source of retirement income. It is
also an important component of quality of life. We believe that
every Canadian should have access to home ownership. CMHC
mortgage loan insurance can turn the dream of owning a home into
a reality. It is therefore critical that CMHC be able to continue to
provide mortgage loan insurance to Canadians now and in the
future.
[English]
That is why I support Bill C-108 and why I hope my colleagues
will see fit to give swift passage to this administrative bill so that
CMHC can continue to help Canadians realize their dreams of
owning a home.
The concept of home speaks to our basic human needs. Home is
a place where people feel secure. Owning a home gives people a
stake in their communities and a sense of belonging. Home
ownership is a concept the people of Canada support. It is therefore
essential that CMHC be able to continue to provide mortgage loan
insurance to Canadians today and in the future.
The corporation's mortgage loan insurance has traditionally
demonstrated the flexibility to respond to varying needs and must
be maintained as a public policy instrument capable of evolving to
meet the future housing needs of Canadians.
With an eye on these future needs, CMHC is currently working
to develop a variety of new housing finance instruments made
possible by innovative uses of mortgage loan insurance. In
developing new products CMHC is looking to challenge the
creativity of the financial community to ensure the largest possible
number of borrowers can find a product in their marketplace to
meet their precise needs. A variety of choices will encourage
lenders to compete on the basis of services and product
differentiation.
The financial environment in which CMHC's mortgage loan
insurance business operates has undergone significant change in
recent years. The introduction of one stop financial services, the
increased use of technological systems to support business
operations, and the need to manage expenditures and facilitate
better risk management are all factors which have had an impact on
the way CMHC runs its mortgage insurance operations.
CMHC is now focusing on introducing new processing
mechanisms which will utilize the capabilities of electronic
communications between CMHC and approved lender clients.
These enhancements will allow the corporation to better serve the
needs of Canadian housing consumers. In light of all these good
arguments, I urge passage of the bill.
(1110)
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
member said if the bill is turned down, CMHC will not be able to
continue to operate. That is simply not true.
CMHC will still have the hundred billion dollars it has had for
years to operate. This bill is about increasing that limit. It is not
about whether CMHC operates or not. I believe there is an attempt
by members on the other side to make it appear that if this bill fails,
all mortgages across Canada will collapse. That is not true.
In the event of a collapse in the market, as in the early eighties,
and if CMHC will not cost Canadians any money, in the event of a
downturn, who picks up the tab on these defaulted mortgages?
Mr. Regan: Mr. Speaker, the first question is what will it mean
to Canadians if the mortgage insurance fund is capped at $100
billion. That is the point. We have a delay in the time between when
mortgages are approved by local lenders and when we get the full
figures for a year. We need to have it retroactive to 1994 to cover
the fact that in that year there were more than $100 million worth
of loans insured. That would be a huge problem for CMHC.
The other important point is what it would mean to Canadians if
it were capped at that level. CMHC's ability to assist Canadians to
access home ownership would be curtailed dramatically. It would
mean that the 3,944 Canadians in the riding of the member for
Comox-Alberni would be the last to achieve home ownership
through these means. It also would mean that rural Canadians
would be faced with even more obstacles when planning to
purchase a home.
We can look at all the negatives and talk about the collapse of the
economy. We would be in all kinds of problems if we had a huge
collapse of the economy in any event. We have to look at the
important role CMHC plays in building our country, in building
home ownership, in building our housing stock and in helping the
economy. If we can expand the amount of home ownership
insurance CMHC can provide, we can expand the amount of
housing activity.
I do not know about the member's riding but in my riding and in
my region of Atlantic Canada, and I think across most of Canada,
there is a need for increased activity in the housing sector. There
16293
are real problems in that sector. People need to have a shot in the
arm. This will help not only that whole sector, which will boost the
economy, but it will help people who want to own their own homes.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister indicated that not
only would this legislation not cost the government any money,
that is, increasing the ceiling on the mortgage insurance, but that
there is a return to the government. That is important.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister also indicated
that this kind of initiative permits the enhancement to the quality of
life for Canadians because it ensures that additional housing is
available, thereby creating jobs. We all know that appropriate
lodging is a basic fundamental plank in the quality of life for not
only Canadians but people throughout the world.
I find that rather interesting and it is important that we look at
that very carefully and embrace that kind of concept, an initiative
which will ensure that the quality of life for Canadians is enhanced
through pieces of legislation such as this one.
(1115 )
Mr. Regan: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the hon.
parliamentary secretary that this program permits us to enhance the
quality of life of Canadians.
If we want to recognize what the quality of life means in terms of
housing all we have to do is leave our country and go to many other
countries in the world. In June I had the opportunity to visit Haiti as
an election observer with the OAS. I certainly got a real
appreciation of how fortunate we are to have the kind of housing
we have and what it really means to quality of life when I saw the
kind of housing that exists in Haiti.
Haiti is the poorest country in this hemisphere. It is not by any
means the only country in the world with a lower standard of
housing than we have. In fact, the vast majority of the world's
inhabitants do not have the quality of life and quality of housing
that we enjoy. Some do not even come close.
It is very important to recognize that this measure of expanding
the loan insurance of CMHC is critical to the quality of life of
Canadians. It is important for the housing industry in terms of job
creation.
When I was in Haiti I saw houses that had dirt floors. Imagine
the problems with disease and insects. There were houses that did
not have facilities which we consider proper in Canada such as
indoor plumbing. We are very fortunate to the ability to expand a
program like CMHC which will add benefits to Canadians and to
an important resource such as our housing stock.
When I visited Haiti I was struck by the many problems of
extended families living in a house which would be the size of a
small room in a normal Canadian house and how that affected their
quality of life. It was really a shock. We often hear about people
facing cultural shock when they visit foreign countries. Well, I
certainly experienced it. When I came back to Canada it made me
much more aware of how fortunate we are to live in this great
country and to have the opportunity to live in good quality homes.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am amazed at how the member can avoid the question
we are asking. The member went through all this rhetoric, made all
these comparisons between Canada and Haiti as if the Liberals
somehow can take credit for the standard of living that we enjoy.
We have posed a question, which I will pose again to the
member. Who is left with the tab? Who is going to be on the hook
for $150 billion if the economy turns down? If we go into hard
times, who is going to be responsible for the billions of dollars in
defaulted payments if this goes on?
The member has avoided that question. He has to answer the
question before the debate can conclude.
Mr. Regan: Mr. Speaker, it concerns me that members opposite
have so little confidence in the economy of Canada. However, they
should be aware that the mortgage fund insurance is actuarially
sound. It returns money each year to the government which helps
provide for any problems which may occur in the process. There
are funds provided each year for non-repayment of loans.
If the situation arose where Canadians defaulted on $150 billion
in mortgages, imagine what would happen to the banks across the
country. It is somewhat like saying, why should we have banks
because they may fail if people do not repay their loans. How can
we trust putting our money in the banks because if people do not
repay their mortgages, they will all fail? That is true also. We have
to operate on certain assumptions that we will have good growth
and an economy that works.
I am sure the hon. member will listen to my answer. We cannot
assume the whole economy of the country is going to collapse
tomorrow. We have to operate on cautious and reasonable
assumptions. We have to take precautions. We are taking
precautions with this bill. It is actuarially sound. It provides funds
for failures and it is in good shape.
(1120)
More important, it is interesting to me that the members opposite
want to look at all the possible problems while ignoring the
benefits of this very important program.
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to have the
opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-108, an act to amend the
National Housing Act. I am pleased for two reasons, one because it
is timely.
16294
Yesterday in my riding, I went to a conference of the BCNPHA
which is a group of diverse peoples. They are people who are
disabled, who have low incomes, who have moderate incomes.
They have come together to talk about ways in which they could
afford housing in Vancouver which is a city in which housing has
gone off the map. Some of these people can never hope of owning
a home. Because of this legislation there is hope for those people.
The second reason is that as a physician, I know that housing is a
key component of the social structure that enables Canadians to
have a positive health status, not only for the physical reason that
housing is important to the health status of people but also because
of the psychological and sociological reasons. It enables people to
have hope, to have a stake in the future and to be able to say that
they are contributing to the economy.
As everyone has said before, this is an administrative bill, the
purpose of which is to increase the ceiling on CMHC mortgage
loan insurance from the current $100 billion to $150 billion.
Members of the House should know that CMHC loan insurance
is self-financing and self-sustaining. I speak those words slowly
and to stress them so that they can actually be heard. It does not
cost the government anything.
Not only is it a sound and healthy fund, but CMHC's mortgage
loan insurance has played and continues to play a role in helping
Canadians to access home ownership. Home ownership, members
have heard said here this morning, is a cherished dream held not
only by Canadians but by all peoples. There are good reasons for
this.
Home equity is a major portion of the wealth that is accumulated
by households as well as being a source of retirement savings. The
concept of home speaks to our basic human needs. Home speaks to
security. Home speaks to health. Owning a home gives people a
stake in the community and a sense of belonging. Home ownership
is a concept the people of Canada support. It is therefore critical
that CMHC be able to continue to provide mortgage loan insurance
to Canadians today and in the future.
It sounds as if there is a certain amount of repetition in some of
these speeches. The repetition is so that the message can be put
clearly both to the people of Canada and maybe to some of the
members of the third party across the way. Since November 1993,
210,000 low income Canadians who did not have the down
payment were able to own their own homes because of this
program.
One of the most important aspects of CMHC's mortgage loan
insurance is that it provides relatively equal access to mortgage
financing at the lowest possible cost for all Canadians. This is what
we heard from those 210,000 people who since November 1993,
regardless of where in Canada they live, bought homes. It speaks to
the national context of this bill.
Surpluses that are generated from lower risk businesses are used
to fund shortfalls on the higher risk businesses. That is a basic
economic equation that I am sure most people who know business,
who have taken risk on business and who have had businesses in
the past, and I am sure many members of the third party across the
floor know that, that lower risk businesses are used to fund
shortfalls of higher risk businesses.
That is a principle of any insurance program. Without access to
CMHC's mortgage loan insurance, Canadians in some parts of the
country would have to provide the conventional 25 per cent of the
value of a house as the down payment that the private sector
charges. Needless to say, many Canadians would find it difficult to
purchase a home if this were the case.
(1125)
CMHC's mortgage insurance is therefore critical to helping
Canadians access home ownership. It has long been recognized that
the housing needs of Canadians have been financed and supported
by CMHC over the years, not only for one group of people, but for
various income sectors and for diverse groups of people.
The corporation's mortgage loan insurance has traditionally
demonstrated the flexibility to respond to varying needs. In other
words, there is a performance level we can mark here. I would like
to take this opportunity to inform the House about one such
example that has helped hundreds of Canadians realize an
affordable home ownership dream and that is the manufactured
housing or mobile home industry. It has contributed greatly to
giving Canadians access to good quality affordable housing, not to
mention the fact that it helps jump start the economy in terms of the
manufacture of mobile homes.
CMHC has been working in partnership with the manufactured
housing industry for many years because of its importance to the
housing sector and to the economy of Canada as a whole.
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation introduced its
chattel loan insurance program which some members have
mentioned. Known as CLIP, it was a five-year experiment that
began in 1988. The two objectives of the CLIP program were first,
to improve access to alternative forms of affordable housing
without involving government expenditure and second, to help
place manufactured homes in a more competitive position with
conventionally built homes.
CMHC completed an evaluation of the CLIP program last year.
This is another component when we talk about whether something
is working or whether we are taking a risk. We not only look at
performance but we also go back and evaluate the performance in a
quantitative way. The evaluation confirmed that the program is an
important instrument in increasing access to good quality
affordable housing without involving government expenditure.
16295
The evaluation also confirmed that CLIP has a positive impact
on the manufactured housing industry. There is another issue. Jobs
are being created not only in the manufactured housing industry but
in mobile home park development, so economic development
results as well.
Following the results of the evaluation, the minister responsible
for CMHC was pleased to announce an expansion of the CLIP
program. As a result, it now includes both new and resale mobile
manufactured homes.
CLIP is an affordable alternative for many of the approximately
335,000 moderate income rental households that could not
previously afford to purchase a mobile home. CMHC and the
manufactured housing industry have enjoyed a productive
partnership for many years. They have been working together to
help Canadians gain access to good quality affordable housing and
to enhance the viability of the whole industry.
The enhancements to the CLIP program are leading to greater
access to mobile homes and an affordable option for Canadians. I
want to stress again, and it may sound repetitive, but this not only
gives moderate income and low income Canadians access to
homes, but it jump starts the economy. It continues the economy
and jobs, the flow of capital. All of that goes on, which is what
makes this country move ahead.
This is only one example of how NHA mortgage insurance has
met a specific need. It explains why NHA mortgage insurance must
be maintained as a public policy instrument that is capable of being
flexible and evolving. We have seen how the CLIP program has
evolved to meet the future needs of Canadians.
With an eye on these future needs, CMHC is currently working
to develop a variety of new housing finance instruments made
possible by innovative uses of mortgage loan insurance. I want to
talk about that flexibility, creativity and innovation, where CMHC
not only sets up policy but it sets a policy after it has talked to the
consumer, after it has talked and worked with the private sector to
bring about innovative ways of creating housing.
In developing new products, CMHC is looking to challenge the
creativity of the financial community and to ensure that the largest
possible number of borrowers can find a product in the marketplace
to meet their precise needs. That is flexibility and that is
innovation. A variety of choices will encourage lenders to compete
on the basis of service and product differentiation.
The financial environment in which CMHC's mortgage loan
insurance business operates has undergone significant changes in
recent years. For instance, the introduction of one stop financial
services, the need to manage expenditures and the need for better
risk management are all factors which have an impact on the way in
which CMHC runs its mortgage insurance operations. It also
speaks of the ability to be accountable. Change and making sure
factors like managing and assessing risk are important components
in any business venture.
(1130)
CMHC has responded to the changing environment by
continually reviewing its processes for delivering mortgage
insurance and introducing efficiencies. Ensuring CMHC's loan
insurance is viable is extremely important.
CMHC is now focusing on the use of electronic communications
between itself and approved lender clients. These enhancements
will allow the corporation to serve the needs of Canadian housing
consumers even more effectively. Mortgage loan insurance has
played a significant public policy role in the past and with CMHC
stewardship, it will continue to evolve to meet the changing needs
of Canadians and the financial community.
I underline at this time for members of the House that not only is
the CMHC mortgage loan insurance a self-financing operation that
involves no federal subsidies, CMHC has also returned to the
Government of Canada over $1 billion since its incorporation. In
addition, in the year 1992, CMHC returned $55 million to the
Canadian taxpayer directly from the mortgage insurance fund.
CMHC does not only provide access for various and diverse groups
of housing. It also provides jobs, stimulates the economy and puts
money into the treasury.
I will address some of the questions that surfaced with my hon.
colleagues in debate last Friday respecting CMHC, namely
questions concerning the federal government's role in public
housing. I remind hon. members that notwithstanding severe
financial constraints, the government is continuing its expenditures
to help society's most vulnerable citizens.
The federal government is very much concerned with the shelter
needs of low income Canadians. The federal government is making
considerable ongoing social housing expenditures of about $2
billion a year to support more than 661,000 needy households,
notwithstanding the need for considerable fiscal restraint and the
need for deficit reduction.
The commitment of resources by the federal government is
indicative of the government's concern for the plight of society's
most vulnerable members: seniors on fixed income, aboriginal
people, persons with disabilities, single parent families, social
assistance recipients and the working poor. These people also need
to have some investment in Canada, some piece of equity, some
dignity.
16296
The 1995 federal budget struck a balance of the dual objectives
of reducing the size of the federal deficit, thereby contributing to
economic growth, and at the same time making social housing
programs more fiscally sustainable over the long term.
In its first budget in 1994 the government announced that it
would reinstate RRAP, the residential rehabilitation assistance
program, for two years. The program assists in the upgrading of
substandard housing. We are taking existing housing stock which is
recyclable and using a $100 million commitment which also fulfils
a red book promise. We are taking housing stock and putting
money into fixing it and making it reusable.
The government has also provided for new rental and rooming
house components of RRAP, $16 million for 1994-95 to repair
approximately 2,500 rental and rooming house units. These
programs are being delivered in 1995. I must say that in my riding
there are rooming houses for some of the very poor that I would not
want a dog or a rat to live in, although many rats already live there.
New commitments under the on reserve housing programs have
continued. As well the federal action on family violence has been
extended to March 31, 1996. Some $4 million is being provided to
help address the shelter needs of women and children who are
victims of family violence. This again is what we talk about when
we talk about health and justice. Women and children who are the
victims of family violence and various forms of abuse need a safe
place to live.
Therefore CMHC is not only engaged in access to housing, jobs
and the economy. It is also responding to a social need.
(1135 )
We will continue to work with all levels of government, the
private sector and community groups in a co-operative partnership.
Partnership is one of the things the government said it would
embark on, and we are doing it.
One way we are accomplishing it is through the CMHC's
Canadian Centre for Public-Private Partnerships in Housing. The
partnership centre was established in 1991. Its objective is to
bridge the public and private sectors to facilitate the production of
cost effective and accessible housing for low to moderate income
households, including those with special needs.
We say that government cannot do everything for everyone so
we are asking how the government can work with and help the
private sector to move along and do the things we want done. Also
there are essential ventures into new areas through such means as
innovative financing and tenure arrangements. Much of the
centre's activities are accomplished at the grassroots level with a
view to encouraging a wide variety of people active in their
community to become involved in newly created housing
partnerships.
The partnership centre identifies opportunities and brings
together potential partners to develop and implement the
partnerships. It acts as a source of advice by offering an advisory
service to potential partners to identify the key legal, financial and
regulatory issues that need to be considered in structuring a
private-public deal. Since its inception the centre has ventured into
innovative tenure arrangements such as occupancy rights, life
leases, equity co-ops and home ownership equity partnership
programs. At the end of June this year, the centre had facilitated the
realization of 79 projects totalling in excess of 4,200 housing units.
I will take a minute to outline a few innovative projects that have
been made possible by the new public-private partnership. In my
riding of Vancouver the Kitsilano Equity Housing Co-operative
offers affordable housing for families. Equity co-operatives are
ongoing housing co-ops financed partly from the investment of its
own members. Traditionally aimed at seniors it is now branching
out to help many other Canadians.
The project demonstrates that it is possible to provide families
with affordable housing options in a market where starter homes
are very expensive. This type of project is being made possible
thanks to this partnership. Clearly the partnership centre is
working. It was an experiment and we have seen that it is working
very well.
Some may ask, especially members of the third party, why the
government is involved with mortgage insurance when the private
industry is offering the same product. The straightforward answer
is choice. CMHC gives Canadians a choice of mortgage loan
insurance. Without CMHC, Canadians would only be served by a
private sector monopoly that can do what it wants with rates and
down payments. The risks of the monopoly are higher prices and
fewer choices, making housing less affordable particularly for first
time buyers. The federal government has a constitutional
responsibility for banking and for finance. CMHC's mortgage
insurance guarantees and demonstrates that the federal government
is fulfilling its role.
I have heard members talk about the risk involved. When
looking at the risk in any business we look at marketplace needs.
Some 74 per cent of Canadians have said they would like to use the
program. We then look at past performances and we see that $1
billion was given back since its inception and $55 million last year.
This tells us that it is a good business risk.
I am pleased with CMHC's efforts in my community. I have
spoken of the Kitsilano project. There are some senior Kitsilano
projects. There are projects for single senior women who live
alone. There are projects in British Columbia that are helping
16297
Canadians to be able to get a foothold and become contributing
members of society.
In 1994, CMHC's loan insurance helped to house over 300,000
Canadian families at no cost to the federal government. This is
because mortgage insurance is self-financing. Most lenders cannot
provide a mortgage above 75 per cent. The program helps people to
own homes. The approved lender is able to charge the borrower the
lowest possible rate of interest. With these insurance provisions
Canadians will have access to home ownership, to major
renovations and to rental units.
(1140 )
It not only does that. It creates an opportunity. In the red book we
talked about creating opportunity. This is creating opportunity for
Canadians. It levels the playing field. It gives them a piece of the
Canadian dream. It gives them an economic stake in the country
and an opportunity to become contributing citizens. It is not just a
simple act; it is a broad, social and economic move.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
interesting that the government brings a bill before the House to
increase loan liability not by $50,000 or $50 million but by $50
billion. Yet it gets insulted and attacks the opposition party for
questioning what is in the bill.
The government is suggesting that Reformers do not like
affordable housing. That is a shallow argument. Our job is to ask
why the government is increasing the liability by $50 billion. The
government had better get used to it, because we will continue to
ask these kinds of questions. It is about time somebody did. The
government has been in place for two years and has overspent by
$80 billion. It is about time somebody asked questions.
Every speaker talked about the minister of public works as
though he came up with an innovative bill to help the country. Part
of that was a PR exercise for a minister who has been in trouble for
the last two years. Now that a cabinet shuffle is on the way, they are
trying to make him look good. That is what this is about.
The previous speaker said that it would not cost the government
anything. In the recession of 1980 when the Liberal government
was in power, were any liabilities charged against the loss on
defaulted loans? How much contingent liability is recorded on the
books of the country for the current $100 billion and the next $150
billion when the $50 billion is added?
Ms. Fry: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to answer that question.
The very asking of the question, which seems to be the one
repetitive question the Reform Party asks in spite of the answers
being given, tells me that members of the third party are really not
in touch with the people of Canada. They do not understand a
single thing about the needs of the people.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Answer the question.
Ms. Fry: If the hon. member will allow me to do so, I will. I
would like to answer the question.
Reform members are not in touch with the people of Canada.
Seventy-four per cent of Canadians say that the program is
important because it assists them in buying homes. We are not
talking about an elite group which thinks that only people with a lot
of money should be able to own houses.
To return to the issue, I mentioned in my speech, and I will
repeat it, that any insurance program and any insurance company
base whatever they do on an actuarial risk basis. This has been
shown on a routine, standard, normal actuarial risk basis to be
sound. This is not only because of the need in the community for it,
but over the years since its inception the program has returned $1
billion to the coffers of the treasury. Just last year alone it returned
$55 million to the coffers.
(1145)
I do not know if I have to speak loudly or clearly or what I have
to do to get those facts on the table. Maybe repetition is the only
way to go.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have another question for the member.
Insurance exists in the private sector. Insurance is there
whenever there is the need to protect against some sort of hazard.
One of the hazards is that occasionally mortgages will be defaulted.
It is the belief of Liberal governments that in fact the private
sector will provide inadequate coverage for such risks, so the
government has to step in. If in fact the insurance that is being
provided is profitable then there is no need for the government to
step in, because the private sector would do it.
It is not reasonable at the same time to say it will not cost
anything, that it is only something we are facilitating in the
economy and it does not cost anything. If it does not cost anything,
why is the government doing it? Everyone knows that whenever
such activities get privatized efficiency goes up and consumers are
more satisfied. So why is the government in there? It is because it
is subsidizing an activity.
The question then becomes: Why subsidize housing? Why not
subsidize food, cars? Why not subsidize clothing? There are all
kinds of things that are essential for human life. We are running out
of finances in this country. We are going bankrupt.
What do we do as we are going bankrupt? We take over a
function the private sector could provide, but of course it is not
doing it adequately. It is not giving enough subsidy. So here we are
creating a program that gives more subsidy to an activity that some
believe is no more worthy and no less worthy than any other of the
kinds of things we consume in Canada.
16298
Is there a prima facie case for the fact that this activity of the
organization that is having its liabilities raised by $50 billion is
one that requires a subsidy in the form of contingent liability?
Could the member please explain to us, since she has studied the
subject, how big the contingent liability is that Canadians see
when they look at the annual budget?
Ms. Fry: Mr. Speaker, I thought I answered that question before.
Perhaps I will have to try a different way of getting my message
across.
I want to quickly say that in the riding of the member who asked
me the first question, 5,580 constituents have in fact purchased
homes using CMHC funds. Since 1992, 1,663 constituents have
purchased houses. In the riding of the member who asked me the
last question, since 1992 some 1,525 constituents have purchased
homes. Since 1992, 254 have purchased homes by taking
advantage of the first home loan insurance program. We have here
a party that professes to represent its constituents. I hope the party
is representing its constituents here.
I want to deal with the issue of default on mortgages. The
premiums and the fees are actually what allow CMHC in this
program to continue to subsidize to get this program to work on a
basis where it brings money back into the system. There is a low
risk component to this insurance program. The low risk
component, as is always done in insurance programs, subsidizes
the high risks so that they balance out. That is the basis on which
most insurance programs work.
(1150)
Mr. Bélair: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I see that the hon.
member has already asked a question of the parliamentary
secretary and this is not allowable.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): So what?
Mr. Bélair: There are rules. Just in case you do not know it,
there are rules here.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): So your person should ask the
question? This is the opposition asking the question.
Mr. Thompson: We do not need any more of your guff.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): While this other discussion
is taking place, the clock is running.
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Training
and Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in the
House today in support of Bill C-108, an act to amend the National
Housing Act.
As my colleagues well know, CMHC has an important role to
play in helping Canadians gain access to ownership. While
listening to the debate and the questions, I am wondering what is at
issue here, whether we are discussing the essence of contingent
liability, as opposite members referred to it, or whether it is the
issue of whether they agree with giving access to housing to
moderate income Canadians. Is that the real issue? Is it the issue of
subsidization they are interested in weasel wording about, or is it
that they want to carry on with their right wing agenda and do not
want to give anything to middle income and poor Canadians? Is
that the real debate? That is the question we should ask members.
In terms of subsidies, a clothing subsidy was mentioned. Well,
they have a clothing subsidy, a subsidy for the suits for their leader.
That is interesting.
Mr. Thompson: Your pension would make house payments too.
Ms. Blondin-Andrew: I earned it, thank you. I forfeited one
pension and I am not ashamed to accept my pension.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Another shallow argument.
Ms. Blondin-Andrew: What is really shallow here is the debate
coming from the other side.
I want to focus on the issue of CMHC's mortgage loan insurance
and its mandate to provide equal access to Canadians throughout
the country. It is important to achieve that goal.
As an aside, there is a shortage of housing across the country.
Some 11,000 units are needed. In my riding I believe 3,400 units
are needed. There is overcrowding, health problems, young people
in overcrowded situations where it makes learning and living
difficult. The safety and security of the person is at risk here. That
escapes the rhetoric coming from the opposite side.
I should also say that there is absolutely nothing wrong with
having Canadians gain access to housing. That is a real source of
empowerment. It is a way to give integrity to the family, to the
individual, and a way for people to build a life in this country, to
build security and stability. Homeowners across the country
throughout many decades have said that the main source of
empowerment is to own a home and build from that home for their
children.
The party opposite says it is family oriented. What is more
family oriented than owning a home? Reform members talk about
the value. They call it a shallow argument that home ownership is
related to family values. Let us think on that one. The weasel
wording of that one sad opposition member is very shallow and
indeed is misdirected. People are very well aware of that.
CMHC has the unique role of ensuring equal access for
Canadians throughout the country. It is a major factor that
distinguishes CMHC's operation from private mortgage loan
insurance operations.
CMHC'S commitment is to provide mortgage loan insurance in
the small communities of the country, the places private insurers do
not traditionally want to serve, such as my riding. In many parts of
my riding, which is very isolated, and in rural parts of the country
16299
we do not have access to the banking system. We are right off the
financial institutional grid.
(1155)
Those people are not eligible to get mortgages. Even if they had
a high income, a moderate income, or double income, they are not
eligible to get into home ownership in terms of the financial
institutions. They are not served in that way. That is a fact. In
places private insurers have not traditionally wanted to serve or
have not been able to serve, many Canadians might not be able to
buy a home.
Let me illustrate how important CMHC mortgage loan insurance
is to Canadians in small communities. Take CMHC's loan
insurance activity in the municipality of Brooks, Alberta, with a
population of 10,000. In 1994, 137 households were able to access
home ownership thanks to CMHC's mortgage loan insurance. Take
for instance the importance to the Northwest Territories, where I
come from, in terms of home ownership. I guess it is very difficult,
but looking at the statistics in the Northwest Territories, 660 loans
were let out and were insured to $110 million. These are for people
who want to own their homes.
Under the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation assistance
program, in August 1995 CMHC accepted as equity grants
provided under the NWT's down payment assistance program. This
helped families who could afford the ongoing operating and
maintenance cost of home ownership and purchasing their own
homes. Since its introduction, 24 families have purchased their
own homes. It is very significant for our population of 72,000
people to have loans that were given to that many people so they
would be able to move into their own homes.
In fact there is one other special need you could look at: the
underwriting on federal lands reserved for Indians. This is an issue
that should really get the opposite members hot under the collar.
Anything for Indians would be almost not spoken of or forbidden.
Mr. Thompson: Oh, come off it. Give your head a shake.
Ms. Blondin-Andrew: In October 1995, CMHC provided
mortgage loan insurance-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. There is no doubt that
any debate can raise some very strong views and strong emotions,
but in the best tradition of this 35th Parliament I would remind
members to direct all their interventions through the Chair.
Ms. Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, through you to my
colleagues in the House, there is an underwriting on federal lands
reserved for Indians. In October 1995 for instance, CMHC
provided mortgage loan insurance to an operating company of the
Yellowknife Dene band so it could access bank financing to build a
10-unit apartment building on federal land reserved for Indians.
The apartments will be occupied by low income families and the
operating costs of the project will be subsidized by the NWT
Housing Corporation. That is a fact.
Many of those communities do not have access to those financial
institutions. They are looking at innovative ways of getting housing
for those people. There are 34 housing units that are needed in the
north.
The south does not have the inclement weather and the harsh
climate we have, nor the heating costs we have. Maybe they do in
some of the northern parts of the provinces. Really, look at the
opportunities these people have carved out for themselves to
empower their people, to enable their people to become
independent and self-sustaining. One of the first ways they look at
is home ownership, by building that infrastructure and making it
possible for people to own their own homes.
(1200)
This year, as of September 30, going back to the community of
Brooks, Alberta, 153 households became proud homeowners
thanks again to the mortgage insurance funds. Make no mistake, if
CMHC were not in the mortgage loan insurance business 290
families in Brooks, Alberta might not have been able to buy their
homes. These 290 households represent 83 per cent of the total
number of households, 349, that bought homes in Brooks, Alberta
during that period.
The government knows how much Canadians value home
ownership. Home ownership has always been valued at the
community level. The first thing the settlers of this country did was
build a home. Many were eventually able to get assistance from the
banks and their communities to do joint projects to build homes.
That is the way it was done and there was nothing wrong with that.
Home ownership is much valued as the Canadian way. It is a source
of retirement income for some. It is the one thing they may hang
their hat on and feel security from. It is also an important
component of quality of life.
We believe every Canadian should have access to home
ownership. CMHC's mortgage loan insurance can turn the dream
of owning a home into a reality. It is therefore critical that CMHC
be able to continue to provide mortgage loan insurance to
Canadians now and in the future. That is why I support Bill C-108.
I hope my colleagues will see fit to give swift passage to the bill so
that CMHC can continue to help Canadians realize their dream of
owning a home.
There is an abundance of ideas out there, but many challenges
befall Canadians who are isolated or in remote areas or who are not
in the high income brackets and who face many fiscal challenges.
Those people need help from various levels of government and
organizations.
There are so many things that happen but when it comes right
down to it we can talk in technical terms and be very abstract. We
can talk about the whole fisc and all that but when it boils right
down to it we are talking about the quality of life for people. The
real meaningful essence of this is that people have access to homes,
that they are able to own their own home and build a life for their
16300
children and themselves; real security and in practical terms,
stability.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Chuck is next.
The Deputy Speaker: Members can flip a coin if they want but
right now it is the member for Fraser Valley West.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting
that with the previous speaker I asked how much of a contingent
liability is recorded on the books and how much the government
lost by loan guarantees in the eighties recession. The answer, which
was passed down to the member from the lobby, was that there
were people in my riding who took advantage of a CMHC approved
loan. That is the answer to those two questions.
I presume therefore the member is suggesting that because
people in my riding took advantage of a CMHC approved loan I
should be in favour of increasing the loan liability from $100
billion to $150 billion. There is more logic. It boggles the mind
where some of these shallow arguments are coming from.
When this legislation was brought in one person in opposition
spoke to it. Since then it has been all Liberal members speaking to
their own bill. The reason is there is no legislative agenda from
over there whatsoever. For a country that has overspent in the last
two years by $80 billion, for a country $566 billion in debt, for a
country where crime is very serious, one would think there would
be a legislative agenda. But no, what we have are Liberal MPs
talking to the bill and nobody on the other side making speeches to
it. I think it is a disgrace.
(1205)
My question to the member is the same as to the previous
speaker. Surely she can get an answer from the lobby on this. How
much of a contingent liability is recorded on the books of the
government?
Ms. Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member, and I
am a little doubtful about the hon. part-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. secretary of state will withdraw
that statement immediately.
Ms. Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.
The hon. member fundamentally asks whether the MIF is in
trouble. Is this an additional $50 billion liability to the federal
government? The mortgage insurance premiums charged by
CMHC are sufficient to meet the risk being assumed at no cost to
the government.
The viability of CMHC's mortgage insurance fund is assessed
annually by an independent actuary. An actuarial evaluation of the
fund as of September 30, 1994 has confirmed its long term
solvency.
The member is creating a worst case scenario that is not justified
by the facts. Government members have explained again and again
that CMHC charges premiums that cover the risk. The fund is
sound and has helped thousands of Canadians.
The real liability is the sense of uncaring, the sense of indelicacy
on the part of this member, not caring that people of moderate
incomes have access to home ownership. That is the real liability.
If past governments had taken that attitude, nobody would own a
home today.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): You do not know what you are
talking about.
Ms. Blondin-Andrew: You think you know what you are talking
about, you idiot.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, we have a real problem here.
The Deputy Speaker: On a point of order, the hon. member for
Fraser Valley West. The Speaker seems to have walked in on an
interesting discussion.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate
debate in the House. Whether they like it or not, it is going to
happen. However, this is the second time now and I would like the
member to retract the word idiot.
Ms. Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, the member himself has
hurled many abuses across the floor. We have sustained them. We
have taken them but I can be honourable enough to retract the word
idiot as I referred to the member.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the hon. member's speech. I did catch what she talked
about, the importance of home ownership in Canada, which many
of us believe in. It is important for many reasons, whether for
enhancing the family, sense of ownership, pride and so on.
She mentioned the necessity for CMHC to be involved
specifically in lending money to build homes on native reserves. I
agree with the member it is very important for people to own their
own land. I would like to see the right to own property entrenched
in the Constitution, something we do not have constitutionally now.
(1210 )
I wonder if the member thinks it would be useful to allow natives
on reserves to actually own the land. Then they could mortgage it
and put houses on the land, just as everyone else does in Canada. It
is a bit of a problem. The federal government is the only lender
which will guarantee those mortgages because the natives do not
own the land they live on in fee simple.
16301
She talked about the pride of home ownership. I wonder if it
would not be a move in the right direction to allow natives to own
the reserves in fee simple so they could then take out mortgages
like any other Canadian and have the pride of ownership she spoke
about earlier.
Ms. Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague brought
up a very interesting point. It is a very complicated question. The
issue to which he referred would involve changing the Indian Act
and making a number of constitutional amendments. It is
complicated.
It is not in my mandate to make such a pronouncement.
However, if we attempt to ensure that aboriginal people can gain
access to home ownership, the issue we are debating today, we
know the hon. member would support us. If it involves any kind of
work dealing with aboriginal rights, dealing with self-government,
dealing with the empowerment of aboriginal people, of course the
hon. member would support the government. We would appreciate
that. Essentially that is what it would take to answer the very
complicated question he asked.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would simply like to relay for the information of the House that one
aspect of the CMHC loans has not been mentioned: CMHC
guarantees do not always kick in. There is an example in my riding
of a condominium which failed to keep up its premises. As a result
the directors of that condominium corporation were liable. There
are inherent risks not necessarily covered by the insurance.
I compliment the secretary of state for bringing the essence of
the debate down to the importance of home ownership. I ask her
again to remind the House of the importance of the home to
Canadian life.
Ms. Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, it bears repeating that we
must look at the question in the light of how it affects the majority
of Canadians but also those with specific and unique needs,
including aboriginal people, who often live in remote and isolated
regions, the disabled and single parents. That is a very important
issue.
I cannot express enough that the real empowerment of the family
or the individual is home ownership. It provides a great deal of
stability economically, emotionally and in terms of a safe
environment. The safety and security of the person is dealt with in
the sense of providing a home. It gives an opportunity for the
future.
I have some additional information on the aboriginal housing
policy the hon. member asked about. This has addressed the
failures, experience and inefficiencies of previous programs and
has led to self-sufficiency. Is there any new aboriginal policy? The
government through CMHC is providing $307.8 million in this
fiscal year to support social housing both off and on reserve.
Every bit of achievement in giving home ownership to
individuals in remote regions or to aboriginal people who live on
reserves or off reserves is a major struggle. Each time we achieve
something it is not done without hard work and compromise. It is
very difficult, and every time you make progress it is a major
achievement.
(1215)
The Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately, the time has expired.
There are two more members who wish to ask questions. Is there
unanimous consent to extend the question period?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: I hear members saying no.
[Translation]
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Debate.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Broadview-Greenwood.
[English]
We will resume debate.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak
on the National Housing Act.
This bill will enable Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
to continue underwriting home mortgage loan insurance within the
legislative limit. I put the stress on the words ``loan insurance''
because when I listen to my friends from the Reform Party it
sounds as if they feel that Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation is essentially giving loans. This is loan insurance. As a
result, that responsibility of the government to come in and cover
when someone defaults is minimal.
I want to go back to 1987 when I was first nominated to be the
Liberal candidate in my riding of Broadview-Greenwood. I said
to my supporters in a room in the Slovenian Hall on Pape Avenue
that one of the things I was going to try to work on was bringing
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation out of mothballs. We
had just come through three and a half years when the Brian
Mulroney Conservative government had effectively parked the
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In some instances,
they not only parked the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation, put it in mothballs, but they also devolved a lot of
responsibility for housing to the provinces.
I am one of those members in this House who believe the
national government has a major role to play in the economy. I
16302
never did share in the dismantling of the national government that
Brian Mulroney and his colleagues engineered over 10 years. Even
to this day, I have debates and differences with some of my own
colleagues as we sell off, dismantle, and in some instances literally
give away Government of Canada assets, Government of Canada
instruments. I sincerely believe that by giving these instruments
away or dismantling them we will lose our capacity to run this very
large country.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): It is against
the will of the people in the regions.
Mr. Mills: No, it is not. It is not against the will of the people.
The people believe in a strong national government. They do not
believe in this decentralizing system that is evolving right now.
They do not believe in it. I am going to be very candid. I am not
walking away from what got me elected. If it means I will even
have, from time to time, some differences over here, so be it.
Today the Government of Canada, through the minister
responsible for Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, is
returning to traditional Liberal values. It gives me a great deal of
satisfaction to stand in the House today and pay tribute to this
minister. They are few and far between these days who will go back
to traditional Liberal values and say they are going to bring Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation out of mothballs and make sure
it has the proper envelope to go out there and make sure the
housing sector is given all the support it needs to get back on its
feet.
(1220 )
The member for Capilano-Howe Sound, the senior economist
and finance critic for the Reform Party, asks at whose expense. For
two years I have been listening to members of the Reform Party.
The thought process is cut, cut, cut, dismantle, give away. They
have actually to their credit done so well in communicating that
message that in fact we in the government have listened to the
Reform Party too much.
We support eliminating waste and eliminating duplication, but
we must also have growth in this country. The Reform Party cannot
differentiate between those instruments of government that can
accelerate and support growth and those areas where we support as
well the elimination of waste and duplication.
The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is an instrument
of the Government of Canada supported by the people of Canada
that will help growth. That growth will generate jobs. It will
generate an expansion of our economy.
When we talk about housing, we should not just focus on the
craftsmen, craftswomen, and all of the trades related to the housing
sector. We should also reflect on what other industries benefit from
a strong, healthy, vibrant housing industry: landscapers, carpet
manufacturers, stove and refrigerator manufacturers, people who
make drapes. The list is endless. That is something the Reform
Party is missing.
I am not trying to be partisan. I come from downtown Toronto.
In my community if the housing industry is flat, if we have no
growth in the housing industry, the ripple effect is almost
catastrophic. It affects the entire confidence of the community.
The economist from Capilano-Howe Sound knows full well
that when developing a sound economic equation you cannot
ignore the confidence factor. The confidence factor is the biggest
factor in that equation. If in a community like Toronto there is a
housing industry that is absolutely flat, it affects all other sectors of
the economy.
When members of the Reform Party came to this House they
said they were not going to be here just to oppose for the sake of
opposing. When a good idea came along that would not cost the
treasury a lot of money they were going to support it.
There have been a couple of ideas that have come forward from
the Reform Party that I have supported. In fact the government has
become so right of centre in its actions that I think the Reform
Party should back off a little. If we get so far to the right that we cut
all of these instruments that can generate growth, we are all going
to be in trouble.
Going back to this housing bill, it is so important that we do not
just think of housing itself. These are not loans. We must think of
all the spinoffs.
(1225 )
It is important for Canadians to realize that this home loan
insurance is not a loan; it is an insurance on the loan. This
insurance package is something most of the supporters of the
Reform Party want. Most Canadians would agree that it tends to be
larger businesses, like the financial institutions, which are so
focused on deficit and debt, more so than I would be, that are
actually encouraging us to get behind the Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation loan insurance system. I know this for a fact.
There are big developers in my riding. The leaders of these
organizations do not vote for me, although now and again I get a
little contribution. I know a lot of their employees vote for me.
Does the member for Capilano-Howe Sound know what these big
developers say? The big developers say that when they go to their
banks they are told that in order for them to get their development
loan for their projects they need to produce a certificate of
insurance from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In
other words, the major banks are saying to bring in that insurance
guarantee and they will get behind the great job creation project.
By the way, I know of a lot of projects in Toronto. To the credit
of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, under the
direction of the minister from Cape Breton, one of the few
traditional Liberals left in the House, the insurance guarantee is
critical for the homebuilding industry to get on its feet. But he is
not just saying to accept any project. Many good projects in the
16303
greater Toronto area have been turned down because the element of
risk was just a little too high.
I say to the member for Capilano-Howe Sound that Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation has really become a much
more efficient, more streamlined, more risk averse crown
corporation. When we see that kind of behaviour in that crown
corporation, it should give members of the Reform Party some
confidence so that when the minister responsible says let us
increase this envelope from $100 billion to $150 billion where the
downside is negligible, in fairness the Reform Party should get
behind us.
I want to make sure that some of the fundamentals of my
argument are put on the table and the member agrees with them.
First, I know the economist from Capilano-Howe Sound, the
finance critic, would agree that a vibrant homebuilding sector is
really a vital component in any economic equation. Second, he
would agree with the spinoffs related to the housing sector. Third,
he would also agree this is not a loan per se, it is a loan insurance
plan.
He would also agree that this should be a national instrument,
that this is an instrument we should not devolve to the provinces, an
instrument the national government should continue to operate. We
should not chop it into little pieces like a lot of other things we have
done around here lately.
(1230)
The last point I want to make concerns traditional values that all
members in the House share, the values of caring and sharing,
looking out for each other and family values. The member for
Capilano-Howe Sound knows what a home, a roof over one's
head and pride of ownership do in terms of strengthening the moral
fabric of the country.
The Reform Party has been successful in the last two years in
generating cuts, dismantling and offloading. Now that a good bill
comes before the House that will accelerate growth in a most
important sector of the economy, the housing sector, I appeal to the
member for Capilano-Howe Sound to be fair and get behind it.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to have been named so often in the
member's address. I will summarize what I as an economist
consider the argument against the bill to be.
One view we have heard again and again in today's speeches is
that CMHC is self-supporting, that it does not really cost anything.
Economists are asking why the government is in the business if this
is so. Are members opposite suggesting that the free market will
not work, that the free market does not produce services more
efficiently than the public sector? The evidence is strongly against
that because throughout the world, governments are privatizing
and taking these kinds of activities out of the market.
Strangely enough, other members are bragging about the fact
that the CMHC system is providing subsidies to others so that they
can have houses that otherwise they would not have. How is this
possible? If the organization is breaking even, where does it get its
resources with which to pay the subsidies? It is conceivable that
some activities undertaken by CMHC are creating a surplus. Thus a
surplus is being forced or squeezed out of some unsuspecting
Canadians participating in CMHC. It is taken by the system to
subsidize others.
As a conservative I would suggest that is not the way we should
run our society. If there are reasons for subsidizing some types of
housing such as that for natives, I believe we could reach
agreement on it. Let us make it obvious. Let us make it transparent.
Let us not have it hidden in the operation of some huge bureaucracy
or in some obscure book.
Another point made by the hon. member was that the housing
industry would collapse unless the insurance was there. Whenever
we have a subsidy program the economy and the industry adjust to
take advantage of it. If we take away the subsidy there is a
reduction in output. If subsidies are offered to banks or to anyone
they will take them. That is not an argument in favour of saying
that we need it.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): It is not a subsidy.
Mr. Grubel: The hon. member says it is not a subsidy. It is
breaking even, but where does the organization get the resources to
do what it is claiming? It is making it possible for some people to
have houses who otherwise would not have them. By definition that
is a subsidy. Where is the money coming from?
To say that unless we subsidize and encourage the housing
industry the economy will not boom is what we call vulgar
Keynesianism. Vulgar Keynesianism means that unless we run a
deficit and subsidize a certain activity, the economy left on its own
will never produce a full employment equilibrium. That idea was
current and fashionable in the 1960s. Today it is totally defunct.
Most members opposite seem to have gone to university and have
studied it in the 1960s, in the dark ages of Keynesian economics.
(1235)
We know today that if we subsidize some industries by raising-
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): This is a speech; this is
debate. Where is the question?
Mr. Grubel: This is debate.
16304
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): It is called questions.
Mr. Grubel: Mr. Speaker, this is debate. This is not question
period. We are debating the bill and I am giving an opposite view. I
want to conclude with one last point.
If the government takes money that it does not have and gives it
to an industry to expand, the industry will employ people and there
will be an increase in output. However we have found people as a
whole look at the increase in the debt. They begin to realize that
their future tax obligations will go up to service the debt. They are
worried about their children and grandchildren. This is why we find
the spending of those who have to pay the bills in the future is
down. That reduces demand, output and employment the same
amount by which deficit spending increased on the other side.
That is a very well accepted proposition in economics.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, I will try to
be brief and to the point on the member's questions.
First, the member asked why the government was in this
business. If the government were not in the business at this moment
in time there would be a virtual monopoly. Is the member from the
Reform Party promoting monopolies? I do not think so.
Second, he called it a subsidy. It is not a subsidy. The whole
premise of the member's argument was based on the word subsidy.
It is loan insurance. It is not the Government of Canada making
direct loans. In the judgment of the officials it is a collaborative
effort by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the banks
and the private sector.
The third item has to do with why we are all in this room. This
room is not a bus going down the street so that we can look out the
window and see people crying out for our help, whether they be
young people, middle aged people or older people. This room is not
a bus that drives by and says that it only has time for those who can
look after themselves.
In essence we are in this room so that when we look out the
window of a bus driving down the street, stop the bus, get out and
help people in need. There are many people who do not have
financial resources either to own a home or have shelter over their
heads without this lever or this instrument of national government.
I am getting sick and tired of being in the House of Commons with
the Reform Party encouraging the bus to go down the street and
disregard the people who are crying out for help.
The bill before the House looks after disadvantaged people and
the Reform Party should get behind it.
The Deputy Speaker: The time has expired for questions and
comments.
(1240)
[Translation]
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
[English]
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: The chief government whip has indicated
that the vote will be deferred until tomorrow at 5 p.m.
* * *
The House resumed from November 6 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.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
take the opportunity to speak to Bill C-95 and to discuss the health
care system.
There are several issues to be talked about. The most important
is that the bill is only a name change. It transfers responsibilities
and we accept that. However overriding the bill is what we will do
with health care.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Scrap it.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): The hon. member says scrap
it. We do not agree with that.
We need the highest quality of health care for all Canadians
while not increasing the pressures of finances on the public. If we
look at where many people come from today, the health care
system in communities is an ever increasing cost. The
disappointing part is the federal government has not increased its
costs. It has
16305
actually decreased its expenditures toward the health care system
over the years, thereby putting pressure on the provinces to come
up with more and more money.
I have had occasion in the province of British Columbia to work
in one of the municipal organizations. I know full well what rising
costs are due to in part. Labour negotiations, for instance, over the
years have produced increases that are extraordinarily high.
Communities had difficulty trying to pay as the costs of labour
increased. We know the cost of equipment in hospitals is high and
necessarily so, because it has to be state of the art.
On top of all this we have a government saying that we must
have universal health care which it relates to medicare. I will talk
about the differences in a moment. The government wants it to be
universal but is not prepared to pay 50 per cent or a higher
percentage than it is today. It has been ever decreasing.
Many people are not happy with the health care system. They
have to wait in line for operations, and services are ever decreasing.
There are bed shortages, not enough nurses at times and so on.
(1245 )
I have been attending the Royal Columbian Hospital in
Vancouver where my niece has been in neurosurgery for the last
nine weeks. She was in a very serious car accident. I must say that I
have been totally impressed with the health care system in that
regard.
I am sure many people have gone through hospitals, have spoken
to doctors and have been completely impressed. However, the fact
remains that the services are decreasing. I see it when I visit the
hospital. There are not as many nurses as we would like to see on
staff and so on. The demands and the expectations which people
have for health care today are perhaps more than what the
provinces can afford. Therein lies a good part of the battle.
Some myths have been promoted across the country. I believe
they are more political myths than reality. We hear from the other
side that Canada's health care system is the best in the world and
that any changes would be detrimental. I do not subscribe to that
thesis. The fact is that the health care system in Canada is very
good. I cannot from my experience determine whether it is the best
in the world, but I am sure it is very high up there.
The Liberals are saying that any changes would be detrimental. I
disagree with that. In this day and age what is truly required,
because of the costs and the limitations on the resources, is a core
set of services that would be provided throughout Canada on a cost
shared basis. It could be called a core medical service. Over and
above that, we have to allow the provinces to innovate and provide
other services. That only stands to reason unless the federal
government is prepared to provide more funding into its shared
responsibility.
The government cannot have it both ways. It cannot say: ``The
rules are going to go our way, but we are not going to give you
enough money to operate''. It is unrealistic to think that way.
If you are looking for changes in health care, we have offered a
program for change with a core medical service. Organizations
such as the Canadian College of Health Service Executives are
coming to the conclusion that there has to be some kind of core
service. Trying to provide all things to all people within a very
limited finite budget will not work.
Some myths about health care are attached to this party. They are
political myths. I can understand when we are campaigning or
when we are debating in the House that statements are made to
promote one side or the other. Some of the myths are that the
Reform Party will dismantle medicare; that it wants a U.S. style of
medical system; the Reform Party is in favour of a cash register
medical system; it favours private insurance; it is in cahoots with
insurance companies; it is a proponent of a two-tier health care
system.
The fact is that the Reform Party is a lot more realistic than the
government. Unless the government is prepared to look at the
funding it provides to the provinces, I do not see how the provinces
can expect to live by the standards which have been set by the
federal government. It is not realistic.
The biggest burden of cost is on the provinces. The government
cannot stand by and promote such things as block funding without
eventually finding out what the problems are. I have had a lot of
experience with block funding. It is just another way of saying:
``You have the same amount of money. You can spend it on
whatever you like. If you want more money for health care you can
spend the bulk of it but that will take away from welfare transfer
payments or post-secondary education''. It is still the same amount
of money. The government has not really resolved anything other
than to change the name and provide the money which has been
decreasing over the years.
(1250)
We have to define medicare today. I do not believe medicare and
health care are necessarily synonymous. Medicare to me is a
comprehensive set of core national health standards, publicly
funded, portable across Canada and universally accessible to all.
Canadians regardless of ability to pay should be able to use and
access the health care system.
If we get to defining the problem we will be better off. However,
if the Liberal government merely says: ``The rules are this and we
are only going to give you a finite set of dollars to live within'', the
provinces are not going to take that any more. That is what the
debate is on constantly in this House.
We have to remove-
16306
The Deputy Speaker: You have one minute left.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): So soon? I cannot even get
into the report from the Canadian College of Health Care
Executives but if possible in a minute I would like to read some of
the conclusions which illustrate where its members are coming
from today.
One of their concerns is with the political concerns of this
country. The report says: ``With the increased importance of health
care to the public, main issues have become campaign issues for
many elections. There is concern that pledges to balance budgets
will result in reduction in the quality of health care provided''.
They are really saying that politics are limiting this, and that
politics are part of the problem in the health care system. I agree.
The Liberal government has to open up on the issue of health care
and get away from the idea that we have a traditional system, there
is no other way to do it and that it is finite.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak in support of Bill C-95 because I believe in the
importance of a federal department of health. I am among those
Canadians who value their health care system as one of those things
that tie us together as a nation.
This system for which you and I share responsibility is central to
our identity as Canadians. More than any other program of
government it reflects our belief that we are mutually responsible
for each other's well-being. We exist as a nation and will continue
to exist as a nation precisely because we do care for one another.
However, if we are to preserve what we value we must be aware
of the changing times. The budget signalled a new era of fiscal
responsibility and smaller government. We cannot escape the
financial facts of life which mean we will have to abandon some
old ways of thinking and some old expectations of government.
I hardly need to emphasize how far we have come together. We
know that Canadian health care is second to none in the world.
Everyone in Canada has reasonable access to health care. We
establish our priorities for treatment based on medical necessity
and not on how much money we have. No Canadian need fear now
or in the future that a catastrophic illness will result in financial
disaster.
As we approach the 21st century there is a new fiscal reality. The
government has recognized it and is acting responsibly to deal with
it. We are committed to protecting social programs. Indeed, the
government's budget was about taking the fiscal steps necessary to
do so.
Our national health care system is rooted in our common
Canadian values of equity, fairness, compassion and respect for the
fundamental dignity of all. The goal of the new Department of
Health is to preserve medicare and put our fiscal house in order.
Many of the values that make up Canada's social fabric are
reflected in the five principles of the Canada Health Act. They
reflect the Canadian concern for justice and equity in our health
care system and they are not going to disappear. Canadians will not
allow that to happen. The Canada Health Act and its five principles
of universality, accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness and
public administration will be maintained. The principles of the
Canada Health Act are not just words. Their meaning has stood the
test of time. In their totality they assure both the provision of
quality health services to all and the containment of costs.
(1255)
As Canadians, we believe all must have access to services.
People cannot be de-insured because they might be too costly for
the system to cover. They cannot be turned away at a hospital door
because they have not paid their quarterly tax bill or their
provincial premium. If we need health care, we will be treated the
same as anyone else. That is what Canadians mean by equity. This
recognizes our dignity as human beings and thus demonstrates that
we are a fair and compassionate people.
Of course, new realities require new thinking about how we will
do things. That thinking must be pragmatic and stand the test of
both fairness and fiscal reality.
This fiscal year the federal government is transferring $15.5
billion to the provinces and territories for health services. The total
federal health, post-secondary education and social contributions
for 1995-96 will be about $29.7 billion under the established
programs financing and the Canada assistance plan.
With the introduction of the Canada health and social transfer in
1996-97, total transfers will be $26.9 billion. The transfer
reduction for 1996-97 represents, and I stress, less than 3 per cent
of the estimated provincial-territorial expenditures for health,
post-secondary education and social programs. It is also less than 2
per cent of provincial government revenues.
What is important to highlight is that the federal cash
contributions under the Canada health and social transfer will not
disappear. In fact, when you take into account the economies that
provincial governments are putting in place, the federal proportion
of funding in most provinces will remain steady or even increase.
Make no mistake about it, the federal government is in medicare to
stay. There will be stable, ongoing cash in the system to ensure that
it is sustained.
Sustaining the health system does not mean spending more; it
means spending better. Research demonstrates that there is no
direct relationship between increased health spending and
improved health outcomes. It is not the amount of money we
dedicate to our health care system that will ensure a healthy
population. Rather, it is the way we spend it.
16307
We can do more with less, without in any way jeopardizing
universal access to quality health care on uniform terms and
conditions for all residents of Canada. In fact, we are doing more
with less, as comparisons with the United States continue to
demonstrate.
Traditionally, the split between public and private spending has
been about 75-25. Currently, the private share is rising and is now
over 28 per cent. This is a trend that must be examined as we look
at ways to keep health care affordable to all residents.
We are doing this for several reasons. One of the most important
is that the threat facility fees pose to the public system's ability to
continue to deliver the efficient results that we have come to
expect. By billing both the patients and the taxpayers private
clinics does not take pressure off the system. They take resources
away from the system. Facility fees fracture a system whose
greatest strength is cohesion.
Look at the issue from the point of view of efficiencies and
economies. Encouraging the growth of private clinics with partial
public funding takes all of the strengths and efficiencies of our
health system and turns them on their head. It reduces economies
of scale. It undermines our bargaining power.
Like the U.S. system, a movement toward publicly funded
private clinics could shift more of the Canadian economy's
resources to health care at the expense of other areas that could
provide greater benefit to the health of Canadians. It could very
well end up costing more while providing less. It would be hard to
think of a better example of counterproductivity. Moreover, it
threatens to create an under supply of services to the majority of
Canadians and an over supply to the wealthier minority. It would be
difficult to think of a better definition of inefficiency.
(1300)
Medicare is based on fundamental principles, but they are not
abstract principles. They are pragmatic. They were designed to
make it possible to provide every Canadian with the level of health
care he or she truly needs. We must do so at a cost we can genuinely
afford.
I will comment briefly on the Reform Party position on Canada's
health care system. It is advocating a two tier system of core
services in which Canadians have to pay and in which the rich can
jump the lines and get ahead. This demonstrates a lack of vision. It
demonstrates a sincere lack of understanding of the fundamental
principles of the Canadian health care system.
We will not transfer our Canadian system into a U.S. style
system. Canadians know full well the quality of health care in the
United States and it certainly is not the kind of health care system
Canadians want.
Canadians look on their health care system with pride. We have
an overwhelming degree of satisfaction with what we have created.
They expect governments to work hard to adapt to changing times
and to priorities. They understand the need for cost effectiveness in
what we do. They expect governments to work as a team to meet
goals they set years ago, goals such as access and universal
coverage. They are still valuable and still appropriate.
The new federal Department of Health is ready to take up this
challenge. I am proud to add my support to the bill. I indicate most
emphatically that the Reform Party is seeking to undermine the
fundamental principles of the Canada Health Act, which Canadians
have come to rely on and which they deserve.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, at a time when we are considering the act to establish the
Department of Health, the first question we could ask is: Why have
a federal Department of Health? British North America Act says in
section 92.7 and section 16 that health and social services are a
provincial jurisdiction. So why did the federal government get
involved in the health care sector?
To refresh our memory, I may recall that during the Second
World War, the federal government obtained the right to collect
income tax on a temporary basis, as they said at the time, to pay the
country's war debts. However, by the end of the war, since people
were now used to it and considering spending powers under the
Canadian constitution, the federal government felt it would be
useful to to continue to be involved in this area.
This led to the creation of several white elephants, to take action
in areas for which the federal government had no responsibility.
Today, the Department of Health is an interesting case in point.
Quebecers and Canadians should know that for 1996-97, the annual
cost of the federal Department of Health will be more than one
billion dollars, which includes $347 million in salaries for staff and
$703 million for goods and services, this in addition to
administering $7.4 billion in transfer payments to the provinces.
We can see the insidious effect of what happened at the end of
the Second World War, when the federal government, having
obtained the right to collect taxes, returned this money to the
provinces in the form of transfer payments. On the other hand, if
every province had kept the right to look after health care, it would
have been able to raise taxes so that citizens would know exactly
what amount is spent on the health care sector and whether it is
well spent. Unfortunately, that is not the model we developed in
Canada. Today, we have a rather extraordinary situation where the
federal government, while reducing its contribution to health care
from year to year, nevertheless maintains national standards and
16308
thus puts the provinces, with their responsibility for the day to day
administration of health care, in an impossible situation.
The federal government says emphatically: no extra billing, but
at the same time it denies the provinces the funding they need, and
there is no reduction in the tax points the federal government
collects.
(1305)
The provincial governments are unanimously opposed to this
state of affairs and are trying to do something about it. The federal
government wants to create a Department of Health that would be a
continuation of previous departments, but at the same time the
government assumes the right to intervene in a number of sectors,
and that is why we think this does not augur well for the future of
Canada. In the months and years to come, important budgetary
decisions will have to be made.
I repeat that if we have two bureaucracies looking after health
care in Canada-and in fact there are not two, there are more, as
many as ten or eleven, because each province can have its own
department of health-there will be unnecessary spending,
unavoidably. When they say: ``The government has no more
money, where could it cut spending, how will we determine our
social options for the future?'', the first place to look is where we
have duplication.
Are there not areas in this sector that should not be the
responsibility of the federal government? Should the federal
government not withdraw and give the provinces the right to take
care of a sector that is theirs under the constitution?
I would like to give a few examples of this encroachment. For
instance, for the strategy for the integration of persons with
disabilities, funding will be $46 million over five years, $46
million to be spent on the integration of persons with disabilities. If
we consider the situation in Quebec, the province already has its
Office des personnes handicapées which does the job, and here we
see two governments involved in the same sector. Of course the
whole $46 million will not be wasted. There is money that goes
directly to people, to the client. But say this amount includes $5
million for administration costs. If only one intervener was
involved, we could save that much and relieve some of the pressure
on the federal budget, while services could be maintained quite
adequately.
Another sector is family violence. A program was set up that
would cost $136 million over four years. Again, this is a valid
activity and government action is desirable, but the fact that two
governments are involved undermines the effectiveness of these
programs.
Say that in this case 10 per cent goes to administration costs, we
could save $13 million. In the end, the same taxpayer pays the
taxes. Whether he is paying municipally, provincially or federally,
he always pays his taxes. So it is not surprising that those
advocating decentralization so areas of jurisdiction may be
recognized are critical of this sort of legislation by which the
central government wants to impose its decisions on the provinces
in areas where it has no responsibility, in areas where the provinces
have constitutional responsibility.
Let us continue down the list of programs duplicating the action
of the provincial governments. The new horizons program for
seniors is another example of duplicate administration and
duplicate bureaucracy. Members should see the forms the senior
citizens clubs have to fill in to obtain these receipts. Often the
administration costs for these programs equal what is paid out to
senior citizens' clubs. This sort of thing is unacceptable, and
people are rebelling. They want elected officials to clarify the
situations.
Other examples include the seniors secretariat, the fight against
smoking, the anti drug campaign, the national AIDS strategy, the
children's bureau and, the best example of all, the national health
forum.
Imagine. The federal government gave a team of experts a
mandate to look at health management in Canada assessing the
relevance of maintaining existing programs and of making change,
but without the provinces taking part in the forum on health. This,
for me, is the height of federal interventionism. From within an
area of federal jurisdiction, a decision is made to interfere in an
area of provincial jurisdiction, the provinces do not participate in
the forum on health and no one has the patience or wants to do the
negotiating necessary to have them there.
(1310)
This means that, in the end, when the Prime Minister receives
the report from the committee responsible for the forum on health,
as its chair, he will be also be handed a total rejection by all the
provinces of the report's conclusions.
We cannot ask people we have not included in the process to
accept the conclusions reached. First of all, a determination should
have been made of who ought to take part in the forum-was
participation by the federal government really appropriate. Then,
steps should have been taken to ensure that the provinces had a
strong and appropriate voice that would have allowed them to
address actual situations, because all the institutional networks are
provincial.
These include hospitals, community health centres, shelters.
Practical decisions are needed: reforms in individual provinces, the
need to strike a balance between active treatment beds and
extended care beds. At the moment, the provincial governments are
bearing all the weight of the difficult decisions in this area, while
the federal government, washing its hands of it, is reducing the
funds it gives to this sector annually.
16309
I will conclude on this point. When, in upcoming months it is
looking for a place to save some money, one of the first could
be the federal government bureaucracy enshrined in the
Department of Health. How much can it save of the $347 million
used to pay the salaries of officials working in the same area of
activity as the provinces?
[English]
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak in support of Bill C-95 not only because it provides
a framework for Health Canada, not only because Canadians are
renowned worldwide because of their health care system, but
because today more than ever we need the support of a vigorous
health care system.
There are those who condemn the cost of uniform health care to
all Canadians. These individuals fear that a changing economy and
a fast moving society will make it more difficult to maintain the
current system.
As technology improves and surgical breakthroughs evolve,
expenses increase. Transplants and bypasses are becoming more
common and the therapy and equipment associated with these
operations are more costly.
We are moving from an industrial age to an information era.
Associated with this transformation are economic and social
disruptions which bring greater demands to the system.
Our current system though stressed is simply reflecting the
pressures associated with change. We already have a system that
has provided a foundation stable enough to support change and we
now maintain that system as the cornerstone of our society.
In my riding of St. John's West unemployment rates are some of
the highest in the country. Every rise in the unemployment rate
brings a greater increase in stress related diseases.
Our country represents a nation united. This could be seen in the
strong support that Quebecers received, including support from
those in my riding.
As our nation experiences change, we see fluctuations of high
and low points in the economy of each province. What we need is
stability. We need stable variables to rely on. One variable must be
our health care system. This system must serve to maintain
stability and unity within and between the provinces, a symbol of
what it means to be Canadian.
Increases in stress related diseases produce associated afflictions
such as increase in spousal abuse, alcoholism, drug addiction, high
blood pressure and cardiac problems. The stress of not having the
stability of a uniform health care system to rely on will certainly
generate increases in stress and stress related diseases.
Members opposite have from time to time criticized the
Department of Health because they say it spends too much money.
I say it is money well spent, and not more than its responsibilities
require.
The Department of Health is the department of defence against
disease, the common enemy of all Canadians. Health allows no
fiscal restraint. It is the challenge of the Department of Health to
maintain an infrastructure that guarantees quality health care to
Canadians in good times and in bad regardless of their economic
position.
The health system I see is one that does not represent a net cost
to the country, but a benefit. It is not an expense but an investment.
Every element of economic and social life in Canada gains from
medicare. Canadian patients are freed from the extra burden of
health spending when the trauma of illness weighs heavily.
Physicians are assured of payment for their services, while
retaining professional freedom. Hospitals have more financial
security and can better serve Canadians.
(1315)
Most important and least obvious is the fact that Canadian
medicare provides many economic benefits to the country as a
whole. To take one example, more than $7 out of every $10 that is
spent on health care in Canada is paid out of a provincially
administered insurance plan. This single payer system in each
province has built in efficiencies that allow considerable control
over total expenditures. This efficiency is what holds per capita
health costs in Canada well below comparable costs in the United
States. Because of this control over spending, personal resources
are freed for other priorities, such as education, housing, and
nutrition, all of which enhance the well-being of Canadians.
There are aspects of medicare that provide Canadian business
with competitive advantages in the global market. Some
international firms have established plants here because the cost of
providing employee benefits in Canada is significantly lower than
in the United States. Medicare enhances labour force mobility, and
access to quality health care helps to ensure a healthy and
productive workforce.
In St. John's West the labour force mobility is currently essential
to long term sustenance, and the maintenance of our health care
system is vital to ensuring the people of Newfoundland have a
fighting chance in terms of labour mobility. Healthy business
means economic growth, which in turn results in jobs, less
unemployment, a healthier population, less stress related disease
due to undue stress in the workplace, fewer demands on the health
care system, and lower health care costs.
Health must be everyone's top priority. We must commit a large
percentage of resources to maintaining health. It is our right and
responsibility to do so. At the same time, we must be vigilant and
16310
innovative to ensure that what we are spending is done with
economy in mind.
Among the areas the Department of Health is investing in is
health intelligence. This initiative, which will include participation
in a new global network designed to detect emerging diseases, is
endorsed by provincial governments. The provinces know that
national leadership in this area is essential if we are to make the
most cost effective choices among all available health technologies
and options.
Inevitably, there will be an increase in movement toward
international standards or international processes. This department
on Canada's behalf is very much in the forefront of this trend and
will lead, not follow, other countries in establishing health
standards.
The minister has spoken about maintaining traditional values
and at the same time getting value for money. In St. John's West
and throughout Canada tradition is what has made our country so
unique. Health Canada promises to work closely with the provinces
and territories in order to avoid duplication of programs and
services, contrary to the comments made previously by my
colleague in the Bloc.
All in all, I have confidence that the department that will be
brought formally into being by this bill has its priorities straight. It
will serve Canadians. It will guard our health and our health care
system. It will do this with regard for efficiency and for getting at
least $1.10 of value for every $1 it spends. Above all, it will
continue to provide assurance that our national life and economy
will stay vital at the domestic level and competitive abroad based
on a healthy and vigorous Canadian population.
I have no hesitation in supporting the passage of this bill to
create the new Department of Health. I urge my colleagues across
the floor to do the same.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to try to get a point clarified.
I do not know why we are debating the creation of a Department
of Health. Do we not have a Department of Health? Do we not have
a Minister of Health? Is this the kind of legislation we should be
debating in this House, talking about things that already exist? Did
not Kim Campbell set it up two years ago and it has already been
operating? Is this the best this government can offer? I cannot
believe we are taking up two hours voting for the creation of a
Department of Health that already exists.
(1320 )
Why does this government not get on with governing the country
and providing the provinces with some leadership? Government
members know very well that all the provinces are angry that we
almost lost one province and this country almost broke up. Why do
they not do something about the promises they made during the
referendum campaign and get on with some serious legislation that
would help this country?
Mr. Speaker, do you really think that debating this bill and
creating the Department of Health will now make the province of
Quebec want to vote to stay in Canada, that it is going to convince
the yes voters to vote no because this is exactly what they were
looking for from the Government of Canada? The Prime Minister
is now off on another trip. I do not understand what this
government is all about.
Where does the member for Mississauga South get off attacking
the Reform Party on its health care position in an aside from his
scripted speech that was written by the department, as if our health
care position is out to destroy health care in Canada. Either the
member does not understand our platform or the issue, which is
more likely the case, or he has nothing better to do.
Our party has put forth some concrete suggestions to reform
health care in this country. I find it ironic that this government
prides itself in introducing the health care act, that it is proud of the
health care act to the degree it keeps preaching about some of the
fundamentals, that it will protect health care for Canadians in terms
of accessibility, portability, affordability, and equal access to all,
unlike the Reform Party which favours a two tier system and would
kill health care. What is the government afraid of in terms of the
Reform Party?
We also want to preserve all of the items in the Canada Health
Act. However, the one element the government conveniently
forgets and the one principle the Liberal government conveniently
leaves out of this equation is that in the Canada Health Act it
promised to pay for 50 per cent of the services, 50 per cent of the
cost of the program. It has now reduced it to 27 per cent.
This wonderful new Minister of Finance who cannot balance a
budget and this new wonderful Minister of Human Resources
Development are now going to further reduce what they give to the
provinces for health care; they are going to further reduce what
they give the provinces for education. They are saying to the
provinces: ``You must stick by these principles; you have to retain
this level of services and we are going to give you less money to do
it''.
If by chance the provincial governments decide to be creative
enough to come up with a method of delivering the same level of
service with less money, of reducing the line ups at no cost to the
federal government, they cannot do it because that is the American
style. The government says: ``Listen to us. We know best because
we are the federal government''.
This is a stubborn headed type of attitude that is tearing this
country apart at the seams. It makes me mad to come here as an
Albertan and see those people sit on that side of the House and not
16311
listen to concrete suggestions, to always put them down and say we
are destroying everything. We are here to offer constructive
alternatives.
When it comes to health care, we want and need to recognize that
the level of support and the level of funding for the various social
programs we have are of such a high level that we can no longer
afford to sustain spending at these levels. Therefore we must all
look at ways and means of reducing the costs while delivering an
effective service, ways and means of getting people in and through
the system who really need attention rather than preventing them
from moving forward.
Let me talk about the principle this government will not talk
about. It is out of money; it is broke. Yet it still talks about all the
wonderful things it can do for the people of Canada. Mr. Speaker, I
know we are not supposed to use certain words, so I will try to get
the word right. That is a gross misrepresentation and a lack of
intellectual honesty in terms of the Canadian public. Here we have
people who are supposed to be responsible, who are supposed to be
giving Canadians what they need, yet they play politics rather than
play with the facts and the reality of the situation.
(1325 )
Why not have a good debate and a discussion about issues like
topping up a health care system that badly needs topping up with a
system of an insurance policy in place in provinces if a person
wants to do that to have access and pay for certain operations? If
somebody's life is saved, what is really wrong with that? Why not?
Do the rich not deserve as much as the poor?
I do not understand the debate the Liberals always use. Anything
that we suggest always favours the rich and is against the poor. We
are talking about lives. Anybody in this country who needs
attention should get that attention. We are trying to suggest ways
and means by which they can get it quicker, so they can get at the
point of service in a way that saves them, that reduces the line ups
and the pressures, a complete overhaul of the system itself, the
inefficiencies in hospitals, the inefficiencies of visiting doctors and
how they go through their check-ups.
If this government really wants to do its job and do it well, why
does it not just stop collecting money for health care, impose the
rules and regulations by which the services must be delivered in all
the provinces, and get back to doing what a government should do?
Why does it not get into the area of regulations on behalf of all
Canadians coast to coast so that it is standard, portable, accessible,
all these things, but leave the collection of the funds and cancel this
stupid Department of Health and leave the raising of the moneys
for the services to the provinces? This government takes $2 out of
every $5 it collects for health care and blows it on a bureaucracy
that is ill-prepared to deliver the services in all the regions of
Canada.
Let us stop this mismanagement of government programs. The
federal government has to get out of certain areas. These guys and
gals are too proud to recognize that the federal government is
intruding into a lot of people's lives. It is intruding in such a way
that its members are imposing their perceived-
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): What are you going to
do with the weaker provinces?
Mr. Silye: It is obvious that I have the government listening to
me, but those members really do not want to listen, they just want
to interject. That is all right, I am used to that.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Such a nerve. All they do is
babble.
Mr. Silye: I am used to that.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Say what you believe.
Mr. Nault: Come on. We know you do not believe any of that
nonsense. That is Reform rhetoric.
Mr. Silye: I know what sexual harassment is, but I have never
really felt verbal harassment.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): We will help.
Mr. Silye: I have my troops here now. One for one. You guys go
at it and I will just talk to the Speaker.
Seriously, we have a major problem in health care. We have a
solution called medicare plus. We have a solution that will allow
people to have access to the health care they need at the lowest
possible cost and the maximum level of service possible. Unlike
this government, which just keeps harping about giving them less
and they should do with less, we have something to offer.
If the member for Mississauga South really wants to understand
before the next time he gets up and points a finger at the Reform
Party and says they want to do this, they want to do that, let me tell
him two things.
One, the Reform Party has a plan. He would be well advised to
read it, because members in his constituency are going to get a
copy of it. He had better be able to answer why it is not good and
why it will not work for the people who are sick in his riding and
are in line ups and are dying, rather than taking cheap political
shots in this House.
Two, let me tell him another thing. The time of putting people
down the way he does, as he has done for two years, every time I
speak about remuneration, salaries, or any time I talk about health
care-
Mr. Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I take
exception to the indictment that I am putting people down. I am
here to speak on behalf of the Canadian health care system.
16312
The Deputy Speaker: The member's point is perhaps a point,
but it is certainly not a point of order; it is a point of debate. The
hon. member for Calgary Centre will not have that time come out
of his time.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you have shared this, because
with your background as a lawyer you must have met a lot of
people in your lifetime who really like to dish it out. They really
like to put the knife into people. They just love it. However, when
the opportunity comes for them to have to listen for a while, boy,
they have a thin shell. They cannot take it. These people were in
opposition for so long that they still have that tender shell around
them. When they were on this side they said outlandish things.
They made promises. To get elected they even promised to quit if
the GST was not replaced. It still has not been replaced.
(1330)
We are debating the organization of the Department of Health as
if we do not have one. Canada does not have a Department of
Health, ladies and gentlemen. We have to do something about it.
We have to pass a bill fast to create a Department of Health. We
have to do it quickly because it will bring in efficiencies, it will be
effective and it will deliver services. That is important. Give me a
break. We have a Department of Health and Canadians know it.
We have a system which is rupturing. It is breaking apart. What
we have to do is find a way to help those people who need help in a
way which is quick, effective and efficient. That will not be done
by reducing the funds and saying to the provinces: ``You guys
handle it''. The way to do it is to say to the provinces: ``We know
we are in a dilemma. We cannot give you as much money as we
have been. We have to give you less. Are there ways you can still
deliver the services? We will be flexible''. The Prime Minister
promised flexible federalism and the only things he is flexible
about are his travel arrangements.
We have to let the provinces come up with suggestions and work
with them. Will we still have the same health minister if there is a
new Department of Health?
Mr. Abbott: I doubt it.
Mr. Silye: My point is the provinces should be listened to and
that is not happening. All the Reform Party is trying to do is make
recommendations on ways and means by which we can deliver a
service at a lower cost which is still effective and which still
respects the principles of the health act. That is what the Reform
Party is about, not what the hon. member for Mississauga South
preaches every time he stands up.
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-95. Today I wish to
address the leadership role and responsibility which the federal
Department of Health has had in shaping the development and the
evolution of Canada's health system.
Our national health system, popularly called medicare, is made
up of 12 interlocking health care insurance plans administered by
the provinces and territories. The provinces and territories are
responsible for the administration, organization and delivery of
health care services, including human and financial resource
allocation, financing and regulating health professionals.
The system is referred to as a national health care system or
program in that all provincial and territorial insurance plans are
linked through adherence to the national principles of the Canada
Health Act, which comes under the authority of the federal
Minister of Health.
The federal health legislation sets out the basic principles and
conditions for the payment of federal financial contributions to the
operation of the provincial plans. This year the federal government
will contribute over $15.5 billion to the provinces and territories in
support of their health programs and services through established
programs financing.
The federal Department of Health is also responsible for the
promotion and protection of public health, for example through our
public health intelligence and awareness initiatives and drug
approval regulation activities, providing health services directly to
registered Indians.
Canada has an excellent health system and the federal
Department of Health has been a key player in its evolution. It was
under the leadership of the Minister of Health, the Hon. Paul
Martin Sr., that the federal government introduced and passed
legislation to implement the first component of our national health
system.
The passage of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Act in
1957 encouraged the development of hospital insurance programs
in all provinces and territories through the offer to cost share
hospital and diagnostic services. This legislation allowed the
government to share in the cost of provincial hospital insurance
plans that met minimum eligibility and coverage standards. By
1961 after all 10 provinces and 2 territories introduced public
hospital insurance plans, Canadians no longer had to worry about
facing crippling hospital bills if a member of their family became
ill.
(1335)
The Department of Health followed with respect to medical
insurance in the 1960s and with the introduction of public
insurance for physician services in 1962. The federal government
offered a cost shared program to the provinces and territories in
1966 to encourage the development of a national medicare
insurance program.
16313
The federal medicare act was implemented in 1968 and by 1972
all Canadians enjoyed public medical care insurance in addition
to hospital insurance. Leadership was shown again by the
Department of Health in 1984 when medicare was reaffirmed by
Parliament with the passage of the Canada Health Act.
The Minister of Health of the day, the Hon. Monique Begin,
detected an erosion of the principles that support medicare.
Canadians were telling her their access to necessary health care
was being impeded by user fees and she took action to restore
medicare.
The Canada Health Act with special provisions to discourage
provinces from allowing extra billing by doctors and user charges
by hospitals was successful in eliminating user fee medicare. The
act provided for an automatic dollar for dollar penalty deducted
from the transfer payment. For every dollar a province allowed to
be charged in the form of extra billing or hospital user charges, one
dollar was deducted from that province's transfer payment for
health. Within three years all provinces that had allowed extra
billing and user charges eliminated them. Canadians across the
country were once again enjoying unfettered access to necessary
health care services.
The Canada Health Act is a great symbol for Canadians. It
symbolizes the values of our society: equity, compassion and
caring. It is also more than a symbol. It embodies the principles
which underlie the Canadian medicare system and provides the
mechanism for preserving medicare.
The first national principle is universality. Every eligible
provincial resident must be entitled to coverage by the provincial
health insurance plan. Coverage is linked only to residency in the
province and not to jobs and not to the payment of premiums.
The second principle is comprehensiveness. The provincial
plans must provide coverage for all medically necessary hospital
and medical services.
The third is accessibility. Insured services must be reasonably
accessible and without financial barriers. This means in part there
can be no point of service charges for medically necessary services,
no extra billing by doctors and no user charges in hospitals.
Patients do not receive medical or hospital bills for insured
services. The province pays the bills directly on their behalf.
The fourth principle is portability. This is vital to a national
system. It means that when Canadians travel or move they continue
to be covered by provincial plans.
The final principle is public administration. The health insurance
plan must be operated on a non-profit basis and must be
accountable to the provincial government.
It is adherence to these national principles that gives the
provincial systems a set of common features. This commonality is
what makes our health care system a national system. The
Department of Health monitors provincial and territorial
compliance with the principles of the Canada Health Act and
informs the Minister of Health of any problems. Where there is
non-compliance the act provides the minister with the authority to
direct deductions from transfer payments. These deductions are the
mechanism by which the Minister of Health enforces the Canada
Health Act and protects medicare.
The government is committed to a national health insurance
system, to medicare. That is why the Minister of Health has taken
action against semi-private clinics that charge user fees in the form
of facility fees. Barriers to access must be discouraged.
(1340)
The government has also shown its commitment to medicare by
making sure the new Canada health and social transfer supports
medicare. In order to qualify for full cash contributions under the
CHST, provinces and territories must comply with the Canada
Health Act.
The Department of Health has played a key role in the
development, protection and preservation of medicare. Bill C-95
will ensure the Department of Health continues this valuable role.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as luck
would have it, this morning I read in the
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean daily that, last evening, the health
action committee of the chamber of commerce of La Baie and the
Lower Saguenay asked elected officials to oppose any cut affecting
the health sector in my region, so as to preserve what took so long
to obtain.
Incidentally, a document clearly shows, and this has been
confirmed, that cuts of over $131 million have already been made
in my region, concerning that sector. Most of these cuts were, of
course, made because of overlapping federal and provincial
activities in that sector. It goes without saying that, when the
federal government makes cuts affecting transfer payments for the
health sector, there is an impact in Quebec.
In this bill, the federal government, claiming to be a good
government, gives itself the right to act directly or indirectly in the
health sector. It could use its spending power to that end. Indeed, a
quick look at a few clauses of the bill will tell you that the federal
government wants to get involved in that sector.
Contrary to what one might think, the health department has an
enormous budget. According to the 1995-96 Estimates, Health
Canada's operating budget is $1.05 billion, that is $347 million for
personnel alone and $703 million for goods and services, whereas
transfer payments amount to $7.4 billion. These figures
immediately tell the story about the costs of overlapping activities.
16314
We must ask ourselves what the federal government does with
that $1.05 billion. Under the pretext of developing a strategy, the
federal government, to put it bluntly, is once again interfering in
a field of provincial jurisdiction.
Let me give you a few examples, starting with the new horizons
program. This program used to help our seniors in several ways, for
example by allowing them to buy entertainment and recreation
equipment and participate in group activities. This program was, at
least in my riding, well received by golden age clubs and by
associations for the defence of retirees' rights. It gave some clubs
and associations the tools to help our seniors, for whom these
organizations are often the only resource available. In addition,
these tools and activities helped participants stay in good physical
and mental health.
(1345)
After over a year of consultations, of shelving the various
demands with respect to the new horizons program, our seniors are
being offered a totally new program that is focused on health. The
federal government is cutting a service in an area of pressing need
and jumping head-first into another area where Quebec was
present, where Quebec was already well equipped to deal with the
situation. This can only be described as a case of wasteful overlap.
New horizons is but one example among many others. I could
also mention programs such as the federal initiative on family
violence, the national strategy to reduce tobacco use, and the
pregnancy and child development program, which are still in effect
in Quebec. Why multiply services? All these contributions show
that the federal government has no qualms about going ahead with
its own health and welfare initiatives.
They go ahead with these initiatives without considering the fact
that, in the past few years, Quebec has focused on areas such as
prevention and fitness. Quebec has also shown leadership in
occupational health and safety matters.
The federal government is only interested in visibility and is
ready to pay the price. One of its latest initiatives is the national
forum on health. Again, to achieve visibility, it showed its will to
intervene in this area without the consent of provincial authorities.
All provinces without exception openly criticized the federal
government's attitude in this regard, since it relegated them to a
position of secondary importance in matters of health.
Quebec recently spent several months reviewing the measures
required to make its system more effective and less costly while
keeping medically necessary services free for everyone.
Quebec did not wait for Ottawa to renew its health care system.
It took concrete action in this regard. For several months, wide
public consultations have been held throughout Quebec so that
Quebecers can give their opinions and express their needs. I had the
opportunity to attend these proceedings in my riding last weekend.
Again, this is a consultation process; this is how we must proceed,
instead of creating parallel structures that are a shameful waste of
public funds.
Through Bill C-95, the federal government is quietly trying to
convince us that this harmless looking bill is the bill of the century.
Quebecers, however, are not fooled; we clearly see what the federal
government is trying to hide from us.
I fully agree with my colleague from Drummond that this House
should refuse to proceed with Bill C-95 and send the government
back to the drawing board.
(1350)
The time has come for Ottawa to withdraw completely from this
area and give Quebec the tax points corresponding to its current
transfer payments in all fairness.
[English]
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today
on Bill C-95, under which the new Department of Health will be
established.
I listened carefully to the member for Calgary Centre. It was
very clear he had not read the bill. He did not know what he was
talking about. He was looking at the old bill instead of the new one.
This is why a new bill was brought in, to save taxpayers' money
and to have a health system to which all Canadians have access.
The Reform Party boasts about its great plan. The United States
has that great plan, the two tier system that Reform advocates.
What is happening in the United States system right now?
According to figures released yesterday, 40 million Americans are
not covered by any kind of health insurance and 29 million are
underinsured. Sixty-nine million people do not have proper health
care coverage. That is what Reform Party members want to give
Canadians. Canadians do not want that system. They can shove it
and they know where. Enough is enough.
Reform members want to give everything to the provinces so
they can throw more money at it. We do not think throwing more
money at the problem is the answer. It is using the money we have
more efficiently for the modern technology that has come into our
hospitals and our clinics.
When I lived in Saskatchewan I had an operation. Because of
complications I was a whole month in hospital. Now an appendix
can be removed and the patient is sent home. How many people
have triple bypasses? Before they were told to lie in bed and not to
move for weeks on end. Now they get them up walking the next day
and they soon send them home. Look at the savings. If we send a
patient home, we have to send proper care to the home with them.
16315
However it is a heck of a lot cheaper than having the patient lie in a
hospital bed for weeks on end.
Canada spends 9.4 per cent of its GDP on health care, far less
than the U.S., yet every Canadian is covered well by health care.
Japan spends only 6 per cent of GDP on health care. How can that
country do it so cheaply? I think it is good management. It is done
efficiently but Japan also harnesses the modern technology that has
crept into the health system.
We do not need any lessons from the Reform Party. Polls show
that Canadians are very pleased with our health system. The polls
also show that the Reform Party is going down and this is why it is
going down.
Yesterday I intervened on the bill briefly when the Bloc
Quebecois complained that the federal government has no
jurisdiction in the area of health care. I hope to assure the Bloc
Quebecois that the government fully appreciates that provinces are
responsible for all aspects of health care delivery, generally defined
as hospital and medical services. However, the opinion poll
indicates that Canadians recognize there remains a need for a
federal presence in health, just as we have a federal presence in
other jurisdictions. If changes are made to the Criminal Code, the
provinces then implement the legislation and the laws that we
change.
This morning the foreign affairs standing committee met and the
CCC was before us. That is the Canadian corporation which does
trade with countries. These countries want a federal government
presence in a deal, otherwise we would not get a deal for a lot of
these things. So let us not throw the federal government out
completely.
I was very interested in the media conference the former Prime
Minister of Canada, Pierre Elliott Trudeau had yesterday. He
cautioned not to decentralize all of the powers because that is when
this country will fall apart. He advocated a strong central
government. Here is someone from Quebec who is giving us advice
that we should heed.
(1355)
Public opinion, the media, the members of this House have one
thing in common: They have a legitimate concern about the future
health system and the need for continued access to high quality
services. By defending the Canada Health Act from attack by those
who advocate user fees and private clinics, as the Reform does, the
Department of Health protects this country's publicly funded
universal medicare system.
Health care is only one of many factors contributing to health.
There are also those factors that make and keep people healthy,
known as the determinants of health. These include the social and
physical environment, human biology, genetic endowment,
economic status and individual behaviour.
In a recent discussion paper entitled ``Strategies for Population
Health: Investing in the Health of Canadians'' federal, provincial
and territorial health ministers provided a framework for action on
the major determinants of health. It offers a solid basis for setting
priorities to continue to improve the health of Canadians.
The paper recommends three strategic directions. First, it
recommends strengthening public and government understanding
of the determinants of health by demonstrating the links between
social status, economic development, income distribution,
education and health. Second, it recommends building
understanding and support among government partners in sectors
outside of health. Third, it suggests priority initiatives which will
have a significant impact on population health.
I urge all members to put their party politics aside. When we
have something good, something Canadian, something that will
keep this country together, something that will provide health care
service to every Canadian, rich or poor, regardless of where he or
she lives, let us all get behind it and pass it today.
The Speaker: Colleagues, it being 2 p.m., we will now proceed
to Statements by Members.
_____________________________________________
16315
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last December
the government amended the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act and recognized the value of participant funding in the
environmental assessment process. MPs from all sides of the
House supported this effort to give the public greater access to
government decision making.
Higher levels of public access and consultation allow the
environmental assessment process to be more representative of the
Canadian people. As the Minister of the Environment said during
debate on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, it is one
thing to say that people have a say, it is another to give them the
tools to exercise their right.
I agree wholeheartedly with the minister and believe that my Bill
C-339 will extend this level of access and participation in the
decision making process without increasing government
expenditures.
I would ask all members of the House to support Bill C-339
when it comes to the House for a vote in the near future.
16316
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, David
Craven, New York, New York, $39,500; Jennifer Weeks,
Cleveland, Ohio, $18,000; Nathan Berg, London, England,
$18,000. No, these are not winners from the Publisher's Clearing
House sweepstakes. These are the lucky recipients of tax dollars
wrenched from the pockets of hard working Canadians and
distributed through the Canada Council.
That is right. You do not even have to live in Canada to receive a
grant from the Canada Council. No, sir, if you do not like the
winners here, no problem. You too can receive $18,000 to live in
sunny Los Angeles, California, just like John Friesen, or $18,000 to
live in gay Paree just like Shonagh Adelman.
If you want to write a book, ponder poetry or paint pictures,
come on down because the price is right in the Canada Council $87
million grant giveaway. Remember, you cannot win if you do not
enter.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, today is the 526th birthday of Guru Nanak Dev Ji, the
first Guru of the Sikh religion.
Guru Nanak evolved a completely new faith. He presented to the
people his vision of an ideal faith of spiritual deliverance, human
equality and justice.
The basic ethical beliefs that Sikhism holds dearly are
democracy, non-violence, peace, religious identity, family life,
hard work, advancement and human rights. Sikhism teaches
truthful living with emphasis on selfless service, tolerance,
compassion, love, contentment, humility, equality, humbleness and
well-being for all.
The goal of a Sikh is not only a spiritual uplift of the individual
through selfless service but the advancement of all humanity.
* * *
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the city
of Niagara Falls has proclaimed November 6 as a day celebrating
the recovery of missing children.
In a ceremony on the Rainbow Bridge I accepted a plaque on
behalf of the Minister of National Revenue and his staff at Canada
Customs by the Independent Order of Foresters child print
program. The non-profit organization accounts for over one million
members in Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom. Its
involvement comprises a great number of projects geared to help
families.
I congratulate publicly the IOF and the revenue department for
their devotion to the protection of children. As parents, as
community leaders and as concerned citizens, we understand that
nothing causes more pain and anguish than a missing child.
The minister of revenue has committed his department to the
cause, but when it comes to missing children, one is too many.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
my leader, the member for Sherbrooke, and Progressive
Conservative Party colleagues I wish to pay tribute to Yitzhak
Rabin, the late Prime Minister of Israel.
Mr. Rabin's life mirrored the history of his country. He fought
for its creation, its survival and its peace. It has been said that only
soldiers can make peace for they know all too well the price of war.
Mr. Rabin recognized the only guarantee of Israel's survival was
to make peace with those who had once vowed to destroy it. For the
next generation of Israelis and all generations after them he wanted
to ensure a future free of bloodshed. He made peace with the
enemies of Israel, he said to save lives. Now that he has given his
life for that worthiest of causes, let us honour him by embracing
and supporting his courageous work.
My colleagues and I extend our condolences to Mr. Rabin's
family and the people of Israel. The world has lost a great leader
and one of its noblest spirits.
* * *
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last night I attended a memorial service in Toronto to honour the
life of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. It was an emotional
evening. Over 6,000 members of our community joined together to
recognize the gifts Mr. Rabin had bestowed upon the people of
Israel and upon all of us through his endless pursuit of peace.
Mr. Rabin dedicated his life to his country. As a soldier he fought
for Israel's survival. As a prime minister he fought for peace.
Saturday, November 3, perhaps marked the pinnacle ofMr. Rabin's quest when he spoke and sung of peace in front of
more than 100,000 people in Tel Aviv. How tragic for this to be the
end. How tragic for him not to be able to see the results of his life's
work. How tragic for the murderer to have been in the crowd, to
have heard Rabin's words of peace and not to have heeded them.
16317
As members of the global community we must all join together
to ensure that Mr. Rabin's dream of lasting peace will never die.
* * *
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as we approach
another Remembrance Day when all Canadians celebrate the
courageous sacrifice of our war veterans, we should be focusing on
the way that our troops from coast to coast fought for democracy
and freedom in a united Canada.
(1405 )
Unfortunately on October 26 the Bloc member for Charlesbourg
issued a press release calling for Quebec members of the military
to desert their post and join a new Quebec army the day after a yes
vote. This has infuriated many veterans as well as other Canadians,
including many constituents in my riding of Red Deer.
The action is so reprehensible that the government must take
immediate corrective action. Inciting mutiny in the Canadian
forces cannot be tolerated and the government's response to this
outrage should make it perfectly clear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, just ten
days after our Canadian neighbours rallied in Montreal on the eve
of the Quebec referendum, the true face of English Canada is
already emerging. The National Citizens Coalition is launching an
ad campaign to express its deep-seated opposition to the concept of
distinct society status for Quebec.
After the provincial premiers backed off last week, the NCC's
40,000 members are now clearly opposed to what they consider as
unfair preferential treatment for Quebec. This is a bitter
disappointment for Quebecers, who were deeply touched by
English Canada's show of affection at Canada Place, three days
before the referendum. Where have all our friends gone?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
veterans of the merchant navy who served during wartime provided
a vital function in situations where the death rate was as high or
higher than in the armed services and where like other veterans
they were captured and imprisoned as prisoners of war. Yet for
many decades they were treated as second class veterans deprived
of many benefits.
Even with the belated passage of the Merchant Navy Veterans
Act in 1992, merchant navy veterans were not granted fully equal
status with other veterans. The act contains definitions of service in
the merchant navy that are more restrictive than for veterans in the
other services and therefore denies benefits to some veterans who
are clearly entitled to them.
As we approach November 11, the NDP calls on the government
to treat veterans of the merchant navy in exactly the same way as it
treats other veterans by including them in the War Veterans
Allowances Act.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was cut down by an
assassin's bullets minutes after making a speech at a huge peace
rally. Mr. Rabin's assassination is first and foremost an attempt to
derail the peace process in the Middle East. His murderer thought
that, by killing the messenger, he would quash all the efforts made
in the past several years to find a peaceful solution to the problems
in this troubled area.
However, the demise of this great man will not succeed in
crushing the hope for peace that inspires the people of Israel. There
is no doubt that peace will come to the Middle East, and no crime,
however repugnant, will prevent this. At this time of great sorrow,
Israelis can count on the support and sympathy of Canadians. We,
too, are resolutely committed to peace.
* * *
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has declared the week of
November 4 to 12 national veteran's week. As you know,
traditionally, since the end of the first world war, Canadians from
all over the country gather at their local war memorial on the
morning of November 11 to pay tribute, in various ceremonies, to
their fellow Canadians who died in combat.
This year, as we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the end of the
second world war, Canadians have planned special commemorative
activities for the entire week leading up to Remembrance Day. We
will be paying tribute to the veterans of both world wars, the
Korean War and UN peacekeeping operations. These veterans
served their country with courage and distinction. We are proud of
them and pleased that the government designated a week in their
honour.
16318
(1410)
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, after two years in office, the Liberal government, for all
intents and purposes, still has not done anything about
unemployment. A series of nice documents on employment and
growth were released, but Canadians are still waiting for the
concrete actions and results expected from a government.
Unable to make the necessary budget decisions, the Liberal
government's only job creation initiative was to force the
unemployed to join the welfare rolls, thus triggering an increase in
provincial deficits.
We all know the consequences of that lack of vision. Hardly any
new jobs were created in the past year, and economic growth has
suddenly come to a halt this year, with no reaction from the Bank of
Canada and the Minister of Finance.
This government must fulfil the promises it made to Canadians
two years ago. Its laissez faire attitude can definitely not be
considered an effective job creation policy.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to make mention of the fact that the Prime Minister has
declared a special period of commemoration which will run from
November 4 to 12 to be known throughout Canada as Veterans
Week.
Veterans Week will increase awareness among Canadians of the
contribution of those who served during wartime and in
peacekeeping activities throughout the world.
One of the activities designated for Veterans Week was the
national spirit of peace run that took place in St. John's,
Newfoundland on November 5. The run was arranged to create a
link between the 50th anniversary of the end of the second world
war and that of the founding of the United Nations. It took place in
designated cities across the country and represented a nationwide
gesture of commemoration and support of Canada's ongoing peace
efforts.
* * *
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
19-year old Allen Wayne from Langley, British Columbia in my
riding was seriously injured on August 26 by a stolen vehicle
driven by a repeat young offender.
The young offender faced eight charges. Five of the serious ones
were plea bargained out, including breach of probation, possession
of stolen property and criminal negligence causing bodily harm.
Allen's parents, Allen and Debbie Wayne, did not even know
plea bargaining happened. Further, Allen's parents asked crown
counsel to raise the case to adult court but that was not done. So
much for the Young Offenders Act.
Today Allen is fighting for his life with two broken legs, a
broken left hip, a broken pelvis, a broken arm and his face crushed
to pieces.
What of the poor young offender? He got 15 months in open
custody, a three-year driving prohibition and one day concurrent
for driving while prohibited.
The Young Offenders Act is an embarrassment and the
government is a disgrace to Canadian victims.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians are is still in shock following new revelations
concerning the despicable actions of Petawawa's airborne
regiment. The parties organized by Canadian army soldiers in
honour of the Polytechnique tragedy are absolutely shameful. One
wonders about the army's ability to recruit people who are
trustworthy and who can protect the values of our society.
These accounts revive the terrible pain and grief suffered by the
families and friends of the victims of the Polytechnique massacre.
The parents of Geneviève Bergeron, one of the 14 victims who died
on December 6, 1989, wrote me a letter in which they say they are
still mourning the loss of their daughter. On their behalf, I urge the
government to make sure that those who organized such parties for
the Petawawa regiment, and those who participated in them, be
court martialled and discharged from the armed forces.
We must take action to put an end to the violence against women,
and all those responsible for these incidents must be held
accountable for their actions.
* * *
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the day after the referendum, 23 spokespersons for the federalist
side in the region around Saint-Hyacinthe had a meeting to analyse
their contribution to the campaign and decide what their future
action should be.
16319
They decided unanimously that it was advisable to continue
their action within a group without any political affiliation and that
they would concentrate for the time being on two main objectives.
This group wants to foster the message for change that was
apparent from the results of the referendum; it also wants to
promote the national pride of Canadians, as its members did
throughout the referendum campaign.
Tomorrow, they expect to introduce their group at the national
level to create a snowball effect across Quebec, and perhaps across
Canada. There is a very clear demand for profound and rapid
change today in this country.
To Jacques Sylvestre from Saint-Hyacinthe, André Gauthier
from Sept-Îles, Yves Mailhot from Saint-Lambert, to my friends in
the Bloc who believe in sweeping changes and in the Canada of the
future, I say: Do not give up, things are starting to move.
* * *
(1415)
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all
Quebecers who voted no and more than 35 per cent who voted yes
in the last referendum are looking for change within the Canadian
federation.
The people have decided. Canadians from coast to coast have
massively demonstrated their affection and their support for
Quebec's aspirations. It is now up to the politicians to deliver the
goods and work on implementing these changes. However, when
Quebecers hear what the Bloc leader said about these changes, and
I quote: ``Sterile debate, nonsense, misleading verbal overkill-'',
they are not amused.
In Quebec, the people are sovereign, and they have spoken. If the
leader of the Bloc Quebecois cannot accept the people's verdict and
refuses to help improve Canada, he should have the decency to
resign.
_____________________________________________
16319
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Quebecers
are beginning to get used to playing cat and mouse with the federal
government. I will explain. Initially, the Prime Minister told
everyone very clearly that there was no question of discussing the
constitution, even during the Quebec referendum. Then he changed
his mind and talked of possible administrative changes in order to
decentralize Canadian confederation. Then he spoke of legislative
changes for doing so, and, most recently, he has said nothing more
about it at all.
The government is not responding any more. We did, however,
learn today at about 12.30 p.m. that a ministerial committee on
national unity had been set up with a mandate to consider possible
changes to confederation.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs or
for the Deputy Prime Minister, whoever wants to respond. What is
the mandate of this committee, exactly? Is it preparing to propose
constitutional changes or just administrative ones, or both?
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 committee in question is a group of ministers in the
federal cabinet, who are going to look at all options for
change-both administratively and constitutionally.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs be heading the new
committee that follows in a long series of committees, including
the Charest, Beaudoin, Dobbie, Castonguay, Edwards and other
committees? Can the minister tell us whether this is not a simply a
strategy on the part of the government to play for time, because it is
unable to reach a consensus with its other partners in Canada? Is
this not simply a snow job?
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, when we set up the program review committee last year,
the opposition thought it was not going to produce results either.
The result was the best budget in 50 years, which changed the
structure of the federal budget and enabled us to recover our fiscal
responsibility.
Why should we not hope for as much from a committee that is
vital to the survival of the federation?
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given the
government's unenviable record in constitutional matters, the
many changes in its position toward Quebecers in the past month
and a half and its inability to reach a consensus with its partners in
order to meet Quebec's demands, should the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, rather than bust his suspenders over
some vague committee that has yet to produce any results, not
reassure people and explain the exact mandate and the reporting
procedures of the committee?
(1420)
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 member for Roberval is clearly not weighing his
words. How could a committee only mentioned today have
produced results?
16320
So, it is clear. In the past two years, we have succeeded in
creating nearly 500,000 new jobs. This is what Canadians wanted,
and we have maintained industrial harmony, while improving our
budget. These are perfectly respectable results. I would have
preferred the official opposition to have done a much better job
of defending the rights of Quebecers-something we have done.
* * *
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, recently,
very recently, we heard about the real problem that all Canadians
are facing and that-we can say it-more than 49 per cent of
Quebecers have identified as one of their major problems and one
that they wanted to resolve through sovereignty. I am talking about
employment. According to the Canadian Labour Congress, the
government has abandoned the job creation strategy that got it
elected, in favour of right wing policies that will contribute to
making the middle class grow poorer and poorer and create
disparities across Canada.
Will the government recognize that, apart from its infrastructure
program, whose benefits are now coming to an end, no concrete
steps have been taken for more than two years with regard to job
creation?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit to the
hon. member that she should look at the facts. That may be an
unusual experience for her but it would be very helpful under the
circumstances.
The reality is that last week a Statistics Canada report indicated
that since the election of the government in the fall of 1993 over
half a billion full time permanent jobs have been created.
That is not something to be ignored. It shows there is a growing
strength in the economy. In Quebec a substantial reduction in the
unemployment rate has taken place by almost 2 percentage points.
Rather than relying on the somewhat dubious claims of the
Canadian Labour Congress, the member should look at the hard
reality of facts as presented by Statistics Canada.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the truth
of the matter is that the minister does not take into account
population growth when he boasts about such things. The Quebec
government, on the other hand, has every reason to be proud of its
performance because, despite this government's failure to act, it
has managed, through Minister Paillé's plan, to promote job
creation.
How can this government boast about its performance, when we
have 20,000 more people on welfare in Quebec this year, when the
unemployment rate is 11.2 per cent, and when the number of
people who are out of work exceeds 400,000? How can this
government be proud of its performance, when it has nothing to
offer and when everyone can see-as more than 49 per cent of
Quebecers did on October 30-that deep changes are urgently
needed?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member
recognizes that one of the major difficulties with helping to create
jobs has been the uncertainty that has come about as a result of
efforts to separate Canada. It is very difficult to attract investments,
to provide for new job development when employers are not sure
what the economic circumstances will be.
In spite of the real problems created by that uncertainty which
the hon. member and her colleagues have caused over the past year,
in the past three months 33,000 new jobs have been created in the
province of Quebec.
In the hon. member's riding alone the unemployment rate has
dropped from 12.8 per cent when we came into office to 8.6 per
cent. The hon. member should take pride in this.
* * *
(1425 )
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there are competing visions in the country of where
Canada should be headed after the Quebec referendum.
One side represented by the government wants to go back to
elements of the failed Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. The
other side represented by Reform and some provincial
governments wants to move forward to decentralize certain key
social functions of the federal government while strengthening the
economic union at the same time.
Now a special committee of cabinet has been set up to design a
post-referendum strategy. My question to the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs is: What is the national unity committee
of cabinet doing to ensure this alternative federalist vision is being
considered, and what minister in the cabinet represents that
position?
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, on the second question, the solidarity of cabinet prevents
me from answering. The leader of the third party should know that.
16321
On the first question, we have been able to put together a
package of measures that so far has united the country because we
have tried to create jobs, we have tried to increase economic
growth and we have tried to increase investment.
In terms of decentralization, we must recognize that
decentralization is not a panacea to all the ills of the federation.
Decentralization is justified only when it means that services are
given by the levels of government best equipped to give them.
In terms of decentralization we want to serve Canadians, and
Canadians once again are not served by applying an ideology of
decentralization. They are served by levels of government that
decide on the powers that each level should exercise according to
how efficiently it can deliver services to Canadians.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, despite the polls and the lessons of Meech and
Charlottetown the government is still favouring a distinct society
clause and constitutional veto for Quebec. Both of these concepts
are the products of a top down, legalistic approach to national unity
which has not worked for 30 years.
Recognizing distinctiveness in Canada is not the problem; it is
how to do it. The alternative bottom up approach would be to give
each province the practical tools to protect and nurture its own
distinctiveness, and real control over resources, social services,
language and culture.
Is the national unity committee of cabinet giving serious
consideration to this alternative approach to achieve provincial
distinctiveness? If so, who is the spokesperson on that committee
for that alternative approach?
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, all the ministers in cabinet, including those on the cabinet
committee, want Canada to continue as the country with the best
quality of life in the world. Therefore none of them will be the
advocate of one side or another. All together we will try to create a
consensus on the package of measures that will solve the present
constitutional problems.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the biggest mistake the federal politicians made with
respect to Charlottetown and Meech was that they tried to draft
unity proposals themselves behind closed doors, by ministerial
committees and by ministerial conferences. The Canadian people
were shut out of the building process.
If we have learned anything from this referendum campaign it is
that the federal government does not have a monopoly on brains or
on patriotism. The Canadian people saved the referendum
campaign and their voices should be heard in this post-referendum
strategy.
Instead of following the traditional closed door approach to
developing unity proposals, what is the government doing to bring
the Canadian people into the development of its post referendum
strategy?
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, as I said, that group of ministers will get together and look
at all the ways, all the possibilities for change in the federation.
(1430 )
I am not going to pre-judge the results by indicating what they
could be before we start working.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, the Governor of the Bank of Canada candidly
said that the lack of economic growth during the first six months of
1995 was largely due to the fact that interest rates rose too sharply
last winter, a situation created by the governor himself.
My question is for the Minister of Finance.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Speaker, could you please ask hon. members
to keep quiet?
The Speaker: Put your question, please.
Mr. Loubier: Will the Minister of Finance recognize that the
Bank of Canada misjudged the situation of the Canadian economy
and should have started lowering interest rates much sooner than it
did, so as to help create, not eliminate, jobs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Governor of the
Bank of Canada said there were several reasons explaining high
real interest rates, and he mentioned two of them. One is the need
to put our fiscal house in order. In that regard, he said that the
federal government and the provinces, except for one, had already
started that process.
Second, the governor clearly mentioned the political uncertainty
for which the BQ and the PQ are responsible.
16322
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister was careful not to mention that the governor
gave, as the primary and most important factor, the situation of the
Canadian debt, which is the responsibility of the finance minister.
Earlier, I listened to the minister when he was discussing what he
had accomplished so far. Do you know what the Liberals have
accomplished in the last two years? They have managed to
maintain the number of unemployed and to increase the number of
welfare recipients. This is what they have actually managed to do.
Considering that, throughout the referendum campaign, the
Minister of Finance kept repeating that he had a real influence on
Canadian monetary policy, are we to understand that he wilfully let
interest rates go up, so as to eliminate thousands of jobs for
Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think that
Quebecers made a decision that will result in lower interest rates.
Indeed, the day after the referendum, interest rates fell by 147 basis
points, which is almost a record.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Reform Party has a new Canadian agenda for change which would
give more powers to the provinces for social programs. Incredibly,
the Minister for Human Resources Development has threatened to
cut transfer payments to British Columbia for its changes to
welfare.
After having already cut transfer payments, why is the minister
breaking the Liberal promise for change given at Verdun by the
Prime Minister by threatening British Columbia?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not so incredible that a
minister of the crown upholds the laws of Canada. The laws of
Canada under the Canada assistance plan state very clearly that
individual provinces should not cut transfer payments for those
from out of province. That protects a basic right enshrined in the
Constitution, the right of mobility. All Canadians should be treated
equally. Even though they may be poor Canadians, they should still
get equal treatment.
I would like to clarify one important point for the hon. member. I
have not been threatening British Columbia. I have said very
clearly that there are many opportunities for us to try to resolve
these problems. Some very serious conditions should be addressed.
The provinces have set up a forum called the Council of Social
Ministers. They are supposed to be meeting to arrive at a common
approach to these issues.
It would be unfortunate for one province to take unilateral action
when all the provinces have tried to come together to find a
co-operative approach. I am quite prepared to meet with them and
deal with it.
It would be much more important for the hon. member to be
directing her concerns to the ministers of the B.C. government who
seem to be thwarting or short circuiting a very effective and
co-operative federal-provincial process.
(1435 )
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
welfare reforms in B.C. are not illegal. In fact, if the minister was
familiar with the charter he would know that section 6(4) clearly
demonstrates that B.C.'s changes are legal.
Canadians are demanding fundamental change to government.
The provinces are demanding more freedom. The minister is
jeopardizing national unity by threatening the provinces, especially
when his legal facts are wrong.
The minister is meddling in provincial jurisdiction where he has
no legal right. Why will the minister not admit that his empty
grandstanding is nothing more than another federal government
power grab?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a time in the history of
the country when all regions should be building bridges, not walls
and barriers.
The hon. member, as a federal member of Parliament, is
endorsing actions which are clearly contrary to the law under the
Canada assistance plan. All of a sudden the hon. member seems to
have acquired great powers of legal judgment.
I would simply refer the hon. member to the Finlay case in the
federal court, which clearly substantiates the responsibility of the
federal government to uphold the basic conditions under the
Canada assistance plan. I would recommend that before the hon.
member starts to lecture people on the law that she should first read
the law.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Last week, we learned that, in addition to the racist and
degrading behaviour of members of the former airborne regiment
in Petawawa, some of them even organized, on two occasions,
parties to celebrate the anniversary of the tragedy which occurred
at Montreal's École polytechnique, in which 14 innocent victims
lost their lives.
16323
Given the behaviour of these soldiers, will the Minister of
National Defence admit that, at this point in time, the least he can
do is to immediately suspend the promotions granted to those
involved?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I would
like to welcome the hon. member, as she has obviously been
appointed as the new defence critic. That is quite appropriate, given
the inflammatory remarks of the hon. member for Charlesbourg in
a press release two days before the referendum.
With respect to the question, it was posed yesterday and it was
answered yesterday.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
absolutely appalling to make light of such an important issue.
I would like to know why the government disbanded Petawawa's
airborne regiment before the inquiry had even begun, but must now
wait until the end of the inquiry before suspending the promotions
granted to some who were directly involved in such despicable
acts?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these matters
were dealt with earlier this year with the disbanding of the airborne
regiment and some comments which I made in the House some
weeks ago about various promotions.
* * *
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Industry has been aware of the abuse of his
department's aboriginal business development programs and
specifically the role played by Mr. Henry Wetelainen, president of
the Ontario Metis and Aboriginal Association, based in Sault Ste.
Marie.
This individual has misappropriated millions of dollars of
taxpayers' money, most of it on companies which are now bankrupt
or inactive.
In June the minister promised to investigate and act. Why has he
failed to clear up this misappropriation of funds?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member makes very serious allegations of a criminal
nature. He knows that these matters, if they are true, will be dealt
with by the appropriate law enforcement agencies.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like a commitment from the minister that he has
indeed launched an investigation.
The Ontario Metis and Aboriginal Association has been a haven
for patronage, cronyism and grossly irresponsible spending. The
real losers in this scenario are the aboriginal people who have lost
access to capital for improving their quality of life.
(1440 )
Can the aboriginal people of Canada expect anything more than
platitudes from the red book when it comes to righting wrongs of
the type perpetrated on them by the Henry Wetelainens of this
country?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think the answer to the first question stands.
I would say this to the hon. member. I do not think we need
lessons from the Reform Party on how to help the aboriginal people
establish themselves in ways that are going to promote their
self-sufficiency and their entry into the real markets of the world.
That is what the aboriginal business program has been doing. We
have been providing opportunity to entrepreneurs in aboriginal
communities to build businesses that are enabling them to be part
of the real economy.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of National Defence.
Despite the totally unacceptable behaviour of a number of
soldiers and officers of the former airborne regiment from
Petawawa, the Minister of National Defence is still refusing to
review or suspend the promotions given those involved in this
matter.
Is it not shameful that the Minister of National Defence allows
the Canadian army to promote individuals involved in the events at
Petawawa, that the army even decorated the commander of the
former regiment and that the minister himself is today refusing to
suspend the promotions?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
hon. member's comment, because the sovereignists' opinion on
racism is well known.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered this
question.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how dare the
minister respond in this way? I asked him a question through you
and I think I am entitled to an answer.
16324
Here is my supplementary. Is the minister not behaving totally
unacceptably by refusing to suspend the promotions of the soldiers
involved in the events in Petawawa? How would he react if the
Solicitor General suddenly decided to promote those responsible
for security at 24 Sussex?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member says that he is entitled to an answer.
I would say so are the thousands of Quebecers who were
maligned by the sovereignists on the night of the referendum
because of their ethnic origin and their participation in the vote
entitled to an answer.
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister responsible for the national
infrastructure program.
In Mississauga South we have benefited from the
Canada-Ontario infrastructure program. As a number of
infrastructure projects are nearing completion, Peel region
municipalities want to know if further funds are available for
additional work?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have good news for the House.
In the less than two years since we launched this program we
have already allocated 95 per cent of the original $6 billion that the
three levels of government put into this program. These over
11,000 projects have put more than 100,000 Canadians back to
work. In the member's constituency, some 22 projects have put
some 1,000 people back to work.
To answer specifically the question of the member, we are
currently evaluating the program to determine where we go from
here. This program has been very successful. It has been successful
also in bringing three levels of government together which proves
that governments can work in partnership quite successfully.
* * *
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry. He just finished speaking
about the episode with the OMAA and said if these matters are true
they will be investigated.
(1445)
The House should know that the minister made a commitment on
June 22 in public on Goldhawk that he was going to be
investigating this issue. Has he investigated the issue, and what are
the present results?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as I explained earlier, if there is evidence of the allegations that
were made by the member posing the question previously, the
action will be taken by the appropriate law enforcement officers. I
am not going to comment on the status of investigations bearing on
criminal matters.
With respect to the program itself, the hon. member will know
that the incident arose under the aboriginal capital corporations
part of the aboriginal business program, an area which has not
received additional funding since the 1994 budget.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister may know that Mr. Wetelainen's father received $100,000
as part of this program. It is alleged that it came back to Mr.
Wetelainen. This is a very serious matter.
I ask the minister one more time: Is he going to make a
commitment today or can he inform the House that in fact there has
been a criminal investigation of this matter commenced? If not,
why not?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member describes this as a serious matter and he is right.
He should treat it as such and let the police do their work.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. After
reviewing its decision at the government's request, last week, the
CRTC approved again a $2 per month increase in local phone rates.
This increase will come into effect on January 1, 1996, and will be
followed by another $2 per month increase on January 1, 1997. A
third increase is scheduled for sometime in 1998.
Could the minister tell us if he endorses the CRTC's latest
decision, after having rejected its September 1994 decision?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it would be premature to give a substantive response to the hon.
member's question. She will know that there is a period for
petitions to be received by the governor in council in response to
the CRTC decision. Those may be made by any interested citizen,
including the hon. member if she has specific views on what should
be the response to the decision of the CRTC.
16325
We will take all these petitions into consideration before cabinet
makes any determination, if one in fact is called for by petition.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, what I would like the minister to tell us is this: Can he
personally justify an increase of up to 50 per cent in some cases and
can he tell us if he really intends to intercede with the CRTC as he
did in September 1994?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my personal opinion is not of importance in this matter. What will
be important is that we will review the decision of the CRTC that
was taken after the receipt of considerable evidence, as well as
argument made by counsel. We will consider any petitions that may
be received by the governor in council in response to the CRTC's
decision. With that information before us, we will endeavour to
make a decision that is in the best interests of the people of Canada.
* * *
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
Minister of Foreign Affairs.
There appears to be yet another scandal growing in his
department, namely, foreign service officers who believe that their
shipping privileges entitle them to practise fraud and tax evasion.
Over at Canada Customs it is well known that returning foreign
service personnel often attempt to smuggle wine and spirits into
Canada, not only tax free but with shipping costs paid for by the
Canadian taxpayer.
(1450 )
Is the minister aware of this practice? If so, what does he propose
to do about it?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to suggest to the hon. member that if he has
evidence in this regard and if he is serious with his allegation, he
should go outside, make that accusation, stand for it, explain it, and
give all the details.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the hon.
minister request a briefing from his colleague, the Minister of
National Revenue.
Foreign service officers have been nailed for declaring 200 to
300 bottles of wine when customs officers have found from 600 to
800 bottles, whole wine cellars. Unfortunately, there is no little
form for customs officers to fill out to let DFAIT know what its
employees have been up to. Other than having their shipments
confiscated, these civil servants are not penalized in any way.
I ask the minister: Is a diplomatic passport a membership card to
an elite in order to put themselves above the laws of Canada?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the foreign service officer returning from overseas is
treated just like any other Canadian when it comes to customs
examination of their possessions. Any infractions that are found
will be prosecuted or treated as appropriate, just as other Canadians
are treated.
If the hon. member has any evidence of any particular individual
or indeed any organization that is evading the law, I would
appreciate that information. Until such time, to come into this
House and insult a group of dedicated public servants who work for
Canada overseas in our trade and diplomatic missions appears to
me to be totally irresponsible and quite uncalled for.
* * *
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The health minister of British Columbia is quoted as saying that
until the hon. minister accepts his constitutional responsibility for
protecting salmon there cannot be a workable responsible public
consultation process on the cancellation of the Kemano project.
Is the minister aware of what the province has done concerning
the cancellation of Kemano? How is the minister fulfilling his
constitutional obligations?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for giving notice of this question,
important as it is to the people of British Columbia.
The suggestion of the minister of health in British Columbia to
the Government of Canada that it is holding up or is stopping a
public consultation process is absolutely false. It is an absolute red
herring.
The people of British Columbia should know that the
Government of British Columbia and Alcan have engaged in secret
negotiations. They have prepared a secret report on the outcome of
these negotiations. They have refused to give that report to the
Government of Canada or to any other interested stakeholder.
I would say to the Government of British Columbia that
managing the salmon resource is not a bingo game, it is not a game
of chance. It has to be done properly and it should be done openly.
16326
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Quebec accounts for 25 per cent of the total population of Canada
and is home to 29 per cent of those living in inadequate housing in
Canada. Yet, in the past five years, it has been allocated only 19 per
cent of the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation's budget.
My question is for the minister of public works. How can the
minister justify the fact that less money is available to the poor in
Quebec than in the other provinces and what new way does he have
to meet the glaring need for social housing in Quebec?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
raises an important question, but I think the record ought to be
cleared.
The Government of Quebec chose not to participate in various
housing programs over a period of a number of years. For the
benefit of the House, it should be noted that the first public housing
program was available across the country from 1950 to 1985.
Quebec chose not to participate. The second public housing
program was available from 1964 to 1985. Quebec chose not to
participate until 1968. Despite four lost years, the province still
secured almost 25 per cent of the national units. The first rent
supplement program was available from 1971 to 1985. Quebec
chose not to participate until 1978.
(1455)
The facts are very clear. The Government of Quebec chose not to
participate in these national programs. As a result, the figures to
which the hon. member refers are somewhat bogus in view of those
facts.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister's remarks are very hypocritical because, in the last federal
budget, there was a $300 million cut in social housing. This
department and its minister are heartless. Quebec has lost $950
million over the past five years, yet they have nothing to offer,
nothing new to offer in terms of social housing, except for-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
An hon. member: And they call themselves Liberals?
Mr. Marchand: Exactly, the Liberal government is responsible
for these misunderstandings with respect to social housing in
Quebec.
In light of the minister's comments and of repeated cuts in social
housing, are we to understand that the federal government is
officially withdrawing from this area and planning to shift to the
provinces and municipalities the responsibility for meeting ever
increasing social housing needs?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
question. It seems that the facts have struck a rather sensitive nerve
in the hon. member.
The House should also be aware that since we have come to
office, this terrible minister of housing and the Minister of Finance,
it should be clearly stated: $4 million was provided for the Creeson
initiative in Montreal; $5 million was paid out for Réparaction
programs for 950 households; $5 million for rooming house RRAP;
$15 million cost shared for households under Maisons lézardées;
private-public partnerships, 13 projects in Quebec. We extended
the first home loan insurance program; almost 24 per cent of the
take up is in Quebec.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
have been told by CAVEAT of the details surrounding the brutal
murder and rape of Ann Marie Bloskie. Her murderer was six
weeks from his 18th birthday when he beat Ann Marie to death
with a rock, sexually assaulted her corpse, left her, returned the
next day and sexually assaulted her again.
Why did the justice system not demand that this murderer be
tried in adult court, since his actions are not actions of a young
offender?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Young Offenders Act provided
at the time of that offence and since then that young people, age 16
and 17, can be transferred to adult court for a trial on such charges.
If transferred to adult court they face adult sentences.
The fact is that the Young Offenders Act contains those
provisions. As the hon. member well knows, it is the provinces'
responsibility to administer them. It is up to the courts and the
prosecutors to apply them.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if he is
referring to Bill C-37, the social engineering that has been done on
that Young Offenders Act will change nothing.
16327
At the trial in youth court, learned professionals stated that the
murderer's favourite form of entertainment was watching violent
non-consensual sex videos and he would require lifelong treatment
and counselling. In our new Canada, this murderer would get
lifelong treatment while he is in prison.
Since the solicitor general has allowed this murderer to be
released, what assurances can he give Canadians that this killer will
not jeopardize more Canadian women? Why has the solicitor
general not allowed publication of his name so that Canadian
women can be protected?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
steps were taken pursuant to the law, which provides for the names
of potentially violent people being released to be provided to police
authorities.
(1500 )
It is up to the local police authorities, in light of local privacy
laws, to make decisions with respect to the releasing of names. We
are encouraging provinces to work out protocols for the releasing
of that information. We hope there will be a national system across
the country before too long.
* * *
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Over 20 months ago the Prime Minister and the Minister of
Justice promised that there would be a free vote in the House on the
issue of physician assisted suicide and changes to the inhumane
provisions of section 241 of the Criminal Code.
Will the minister now tell the House and Canadians, since the
Senate has ended its study of the issue, what action he will take to
keep his promise and to ensure that this elected House will have an
opportunity to fully review and to vote on this profoundly
important issue?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the hon. member's
interest in the subject and I am grateful for the question.
As the hon. member has pointed out, some months have now
passed since we have received the report of the Senate committee
which discloses how difficult members of that committee found the
issues. There was difficulty achieving consensus on some of the
most fundamental questions that arose. It is now up to the
government to determine where we go from here and how. It is also
up to this caucus to discuss how the issue should be approached.
That having been said, I have long since expressed my
preference for providing a process within which elected members
of Parliament can bring their judgment to bear, as the Prime
Minister has said, in a free vote on these questions.
My response to the hon. member is that this caucus in due course
will consider how best to proceed from here so that these important
issues can be brought forward for consideration.
* * *
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Last night CBC Newsworld aired a program entitled ``The
Sceptics Journey''. It showed four Canadians who began opposed
to foreign development aid but after visiting a number of projects
in less developed countries changed their minds.
What is the government doing to make more Canadians aware of
the value and success stories of Canadian development aid?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I hope a lot of Canadians will see the film. I certainly
appreciate the question of the hon. member that highlighted one
aspect of the foreign aid program, the development assistance
program that helped tremendously to resolve the problem of
poverty in the world.
* * *
[
Translation]
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member for Roberval if his
question of privilege relates to question period.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during
question period, when we asked the Minister of National Defence
about his complicity with and tolerance for those who celebrated
Marc Lépine, the École polytechnique killer, the minister accused
the whole Bloc Quebecois political formation and all Quebec
sovereignists of being racist.
I would respectfully point out to you that this term is totally
unparliamentary, unjustified and unacceptable, and I demand an
apology.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: My dear colleagues, if you want, I will check
what was said in Hansard, but at this time I do not see this as a
question of privilege. I will review what was said and reported in
Hansard, and I will get back to the House if necessary.
>
16328
16328
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1505)
[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 other acts, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am glad to have a few
more minutes. Before being cut off I was responding to Bloc
Quebecois members yesterday when they stated that the federal
government had no right dabbling in health care. They failed to
realize that a country must have certain standards. Hopefully the
act will provide the standards.
I had experience with the health services of the province many
years ago when it brought in a universal health care system. Line
ups were so long that patients started paying doctors under the table
to jump the queue. We do not want that. It demonstrates that people
who have money get the care prior to the ones who do not have
money. That is not the Liberal way of doing things and it is not the
Canadian way of doing things.
We have heard the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health
repeat over and over in the House that whether we are rich or poor
we get the same health care, the same health services.
The bill hopes to save taxpayers money by doing things more
efficiently, by co-operating with the provinces, the municipalities
and the federal government. How can we best deliver health
services taking into account today's technologies? People are sent
home almost the same day they are operated on or the next day. By
using these technologies hopefully we will be able to do things
more efficiently.
This morning the Reform Party was jumping up, shouting and
saying that there was nothing new in the bill. Its members offered
their proposal. Their proposal is the American proposal where over
69 million Americans do not have proper health care. The polls
show very clearly that Canadians do not want that.
My daughter just graduated from university and is now working.
In the time of budget cuts when we had to reduce our deficit and
our public debt I asked her as a young Canadian going out into the
workforce who could pay for her health care, et cetera, what she
would like the federal government to protect. Her answer was very
interesting. Of all things the federal government is involved in she
chose health care. She asked us not to touch health care. This is a
Canadian starting out in the workforce, having graduated from
university.
(1510)
We are not building Canada for ourselves. We are building
Canada for future generations, for our children and for their
children. This is why the federal government has to take leadership.
We cannot turn it over to jurisdictions where there will be no
national standards. We cannot turn it over to a system where in one
province we have to pay a lot more for an operation than in another
province. Then people start flocking to the province where services
are more available.
A personal friend of mine flew in from Florida for an operation
in a Toronto hospital. He was a Canadian on vacation in Florida.
Unfortunately there was not a bed for him. He had to fly to a
Saskatoon hospital but did not make it. Is that the kind of health
care we want, or do we want the kind of health care that when I
need a triple bypass I get it right away because otherwise it may be
too late?
Let us build a country wherein it will not be too late to have an
operation. Let us build a country where everyone has equal access
when they need it.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Madam Speaker, I will
start with some general comments on Bill C-95 before the House
today. I quite agree with the Reform Party's concern about the
meagreness of our legislative menu, but our positions converge so
far and no further.
This government has made a habit of using ostensibly harmless
bills to introduce provisions in which it assumes more and more
powers. That is the case with Bill C-95. This bill establishes the
Department of Health and amends and repeals certain acts. The
purpose of this legislation is first of all to change the name of the
department. What could be more ordinary?
After a closer look, however, we see that this bill contains
provisions that are quite the opposite of the changes we were
promised during the referendum campaign. It is this aspect of the
bill, these new measures that are supposed to clarify the mandate of
the federal Department of Health and will in fact increase its
importance, which are revealing. Clause 4(2)(a) and(b) is
particularly disturbing.
This clause provides, and I quote:
-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;
(b) the protection of the people of Canada against risks to health and the
spreading of diseases;
On the pretext of intervening on behalf of the well-being of the
people of Canada, Ottawa could outflank the provinces in an area
that is a provincial responsibility. These two clauses in Bill C-95
16329
give an indication of the very broad application this bill might
have. It may have serious repercussions.
Need we recall that the Canadian Constitution of 1867
specifically recognizes health as an exclusive responsibility of the
provinces? I know this government would rather not hear about the
Constitution. That is just too bad. As long as this government keeps
violating the Constitution, it will hear about it from Quebec, at any
rate.
The federal government's intrusion in this provincial jurisdiction
flies in the face of the very principles of Canadian federalism. And
then they wonder why it does not work. They are trying to use the
power of disallowance, based on considerations such as national
interest, peace and good government, and of course the
government's spending powers, to again restrict the prerogatives of
the provinces.
However, as the federal government tries to encroach on
jurisdictions that are exclusive to the provinces, its financial
contribution decreases steadily.
(1515)
In less than 20 years, the federal government's contribution to
health care funding dropped from 45.9 per cent in 1977 to an
expected 28 per cent in 1997. Finally, to divert attention from its
financial withdrawal, the federal government proposed in its last
budget a more flexible transfer payment formula under which all
the money goes into a single envelope called the Canada social
transfer. The federal government announced in the same breath that
it would withdraw unilaterally and cut payments to Quebec by
$308 million in 1995-96 and by more than $587 million in
1997-98.
The provinces were given the choice of cutting in either
education, health or welfare. What a great example of
decentralization and co-operation. Talk about flexible federalism.
When a government can no longer afford to pay, it must have the
basic decency not to try to impose its national standards and
objectives more vigorously at the same time.
Since coming to power, the Liberal government has chosen to
keep its deficit from growing by attacking social programs and
going after the most vulnerable in our society. Yet, it is still trying
to pursue Trudeau's old dream of controlling the provincial health
care systems through national standards.
The federal government is now getting ready to invade the
provinces' jurisdiction through the back door. For example,
subclause 4(2)(c) of the bill gives the federal Department of Health
the power to conduct investigations and research into public health.
You may think that this is a noble objective. But how will the
federal government conduct these investigations and this research?
Even though it is not mentioned in the bill, should the federal
government have access to all the information needed to carry out
its mission? Most of this information is often held by health
organizations subject to provincial legislation.
This whole debate may appear pretty technical, but it may lead to
many futile squabbles and discussions simply because the federal
government does not respect its own fundamental law.
Of course, Bill C-95 shows our federal big brother's
commitment to look after the health of all Canadians. It does not,
however, tell us what steps the federal Department of Health will
take to fulfil these noble ambitions. This is no accident. It is not in
the federal government's interests to remind us once again that it is
continuing its attempt to encroach on our jurisdiction over health
matters.
In fact, on November 2, in the debate on second reading of bill
C-95, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Health
plainly admitted that ``its renewed commitment to a long and
glorious tradition has inspired Liberal governments, politicians of
every party and Canadian people over many years, indeed over
many decades''. Later, her Liberal colleague, the hon. member for
Pierrefonds-Dollard, added that the Minister of Health had, and I
quote: ``strongly and successfully defended the principles
championed for half a century by the Liberal Party, while
developing Canada's health care system''.
It is obvious that, through Bill C-95 in particular, the Minister of
Health is carrying on the work that Marc Lalonde and Monique
Bégin started. And after that, we wonder what is wrong with the
federal system. Upholding a long and glorious tradition of
duplication, overlap and encroachment, now I have seen it all. Just
days ago, the Prime Minister promised major changes to
accommodate the provinces, and Quebec in particular.
But today, we have before us yet another bill put forward by the
federal government, which is doing everything it can to centralize
and once again intrude on provincial areas of jurisdiction.
(1520)
To paraphrase no committee chairman Michel Bélanger, this is
the beauty of it. If the government is really committed to reducing
the deficit, it should start by eliminating duplication and overlap
with respect to health matters. But, on the contrary, Trudeau's
followers are carrying on his work. I could mention, among others
things, the fact that the department allocates important budgets for
programs and projects that already exist in Quebec. Here are some
examples: the strategy for the integration of handicapped people,
the fight against family violence, the new horizons program, the
seniors secretariat, the fight against tobacco, the anti-drug strategy,
16330
the strategy against AIDS, the program on pregnancy and child
development, the forum on health, and so on.
What happened to the commitment made barely fifteen days ago
by the Prime Minister, who promised that changes would be made?
You will understand that, as an elected member representing
Quebec, I simply cannot support Bill C-95.
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to express my support for Bill C-95.
In this connection, I would like to discuss what Health Canada
has accomplished and recall that our country is very proud, and
rightly so, of its health care system.
In fact, there is no other system like it in the world. We also have
the Canada Health Act, which contains the five basic principles of
our system: universality, accessibility, comprehensiveness,
portability, and public administration.
Our health system has contributed enormously to our excellent
quality of life. Furthermore, co-operation at the international level
helps us stay abreast of new advances in health care in many other
countries. Thanks to this co-operation, users and providers are
informed of what is being done in the rest of the world. All
industrialized countries exchange information and, as a result, are
able to act efficiently and effectively.
Canada has already introduced a number of measures to help
achieve its goal of renewing the health care system. We are
reinforcing the community aspect of health care, improving the
role of consumers with respect to health care and seeking a more
integrated approach to health which goes beyond health care. A
large proportion of our present and future interventions is focused
on the principal factors that determine our health. A fundamental
truth has transpired, and it is that health is more than just care. This
is an incentive to understand the complex set of factors that create a
society whose members are all in the best possible health.
Governments and communities are examining social, economic,
physical and psychological aspects as well as other factors. The
work being done in these areas supports and complements the
services provided by the regular health care system.
We are beginning to understand the close and complex
connections between factors that determine our health, and our
decision-making is aimed at improving the quality of health care
services. The national forum on health plays an important role in
this respect.
In fact, the forum's role is to project a model of health care for
the twenty-first century. The forum's team consists of 24 Canadian
men and women: health professionals, volunteers and consumers
who have come from across the country.
[English]
While our appreciation of the complexity of the interrelated
factors that contribute to overall health has grown, so too have the
challenges in making effective choices about how to allocate
increasingly limited resources.
The federal government has taken a leadership role in
communicating with all stakeholders, including the public, in
terms of the kind of future systems we want and can afford. The
national forum on health will play an important role in this regard.
If we are to preserve and improve our health care system we
must first decide what is essential. In this regard the national forum
on health and other bodies will provide important advice to the
government.
(1525)
[Translation]
One of the jobs of the members of the forum is to engage in
honest and open discussions with Canadians about influences on
our health and on our health care system in the coming years.
Four working groups have already been set up and are
responsible for various aspects: decisions based on convincing
evidence, health determiners, values and achieving a balance.
The forum was set up in response to Canadians' concerns, and
Canadians are justifiably proud of their health system.
The forum is trying to find ways to improve both the health of
Canadians and the effectiveness and efficiency of health care
services, and public participation is vital to the fulfilment of its
mandate.
Through a range of activities, the members of the forum are
informing the public about the problems and the options for
improvement of health and health care services in Canada.
The forum's broad public consultation will enable all Canadians
to help develop recommendations.
Every Canadian will have an opportunity to express his or her
values and convictions.
[English]
The federal government is also working in concert with its
provincial and territorial counterparts through the conference of
ministers of health. One of our common priorities in order to
enhance the appropriateness and quality of health care has been to
promote and strengthen the use of clinical practise guidelines. We
want to orient health care on which practices work best for different
groups at risk.
16331
[Translation]
I would also like to point out that Canada is renowned worldwide
as a centre for research, treatment and pharmaceutical
developments.
Specifically, our country is a leader in the area of chemotherapy.
Throughout the world, researchers and practitioners are investing
in work of great significance to the millions of Canadians suffering
from cancer or an infectious disease, and to those who are at their
side in their struggle. The work done so far has had tangible results.
[English]
In 1990 approximately 413,000 Canadians who had been
diagnosed with cancer within the previous decade were still alive.
More than one-third of these people had lived more than five years
since their initial diagnosis. Many of them had chemotherapy to
thank for their success in fighting cancer. This year alone a further
125,000 Canadians will be diagnosed with cancer. They will look
to advances in treatment such as chemotherapy for answers and
hope.
In addition to chemotherapy, vaccines play another important
role in our public health efforts. For example, while the hepatitis B
vaccine is used successfully in the prevention of infection it also
prevents the development of cancer of the liver. Another example
is the BCG vaccine which is accepted as a therapeutic agent for
treating cancer of the bladder and is also known to be used in the
prevention of tuberculosis especially in countries where the
incidence of tuberculosis is high.
[Translation]
We also know that the appearance of resistant strains in the case
of tuberculosis, for instance, is a cause of grave concern among
public health authorities.
In a world in which international travel has become
commonplace, experience has shown that the progress we have
made in fighting infectious diseases within our borders is no longer
enough.
These factors are so many reasons why Canada puts such
emphasis on health issues. Many of our health care priorities centre
on the use of chemotherapy.
Health Canada is both a partner and a facilitator in medical
research and efforts deployed in the public health sector in Canada.
This is an indication of the importance of progress achieved
thanks to research and the government's resolve to continue this
work.
[English]
The federal role in research has been generally well accepted in
this country. Provincial research programs have frequently
developed their own provincial research councils around the
federal council to avoid overlap while ensuring their own research
goals are met.
(1530 )
One of the best examples of the provincial research model is that
of Quebec. Some hon. members may not be aware that one of the
chief architects of the conseil de recherches, now the fonds de
recherches, is the present Quebec minister of health, Jean Rochon.
Mr. Rochon is a former dean of medicine at the University of Laval
as well as the chair of the external advisory committee for Health
Canada's national health research development program. He is also
the author of the Rochon report and has worked for the World
Health Organization. I suppose it is not surprising that research in
Mr. Rochon's province is so well organized.
[Translation]
Contacts at the international level play a key role in the process.
These contacts are long established, and we now have many
mechanisms to help us overcome the barriers of time and space and
work as a team to conquer disease.
Madam Speaker, just think what Pasteur would have
accomplished with the help of Internet! Whether we are talking
about cancer or infectious diseases, the entire population of this
planet benefits from the co-operation of Health Canada with all
concerned. I believe that together we will be able to make the
requisite changes in our cherished health care system and bring it
into the next century. I think we are on the right track.
I would now like to quote an old Arab saying: ``He who has
health has hope; he who has hope lacks nothing''. With the help of
all concerned, Canadians will keep both health and hope.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I was
particularly touched by the comments of the member for
Parkdale-High Park about his friend who on coming back from
Florida was not able to find suitable medical treatment in Toronto.
He had to go to Saskatoon and unfortunately it was too late.
Few issues treat all of us the same but the issue of health is one
of them. All of us are concerned about health not only for ourselves
but also for our families, friends and neighbours.
The hon. member for Nickel Belt, who just spoke, said that our
country is very proud of its health system. I agree with that. He also
said our health service has greatly contributed to our wonderful
quality of life. I also agree with that.
The problem, I suggest, is the fact that the Liberals seem to think
that they have a corner on wisdom when it comes to health care,
that only they have the answers. This is really unfortunate.
I have also listened to the postering of the Bloc Quebecois during
this debate. This is the official opposition that the Liberals choose
to have in this House of Commons, contrary to anything else they
may say. All the Bloc can do is posture about the whole situation
with respect to Quebec in this country. It seems to me a shame
16332
when we are actually dealing with an issue that has something to do
with all of us.
The member for Parkdale-High Park said we must build a
health care system before it is too late. Unfortunately, with the
greatest respect to that member and to the Liberals, I say that the
status quo as it pertains to medicare as it is presently constructed is
not an option and that is the whole problem. The status quo is not
an option.
Someone earlier in the debate today said that the Liberals were
committed to medicare and to seeing that there are no barriers to
access. I suggest that one of the greatest barriers to access is the $7
billion that the Liberals are pulling out of this part of the program.
Let us take a look at health care. The health minister threatens
the provincial governments if they choose to try and come up with
some new solutions or some different ways of looking at things in
the same envelope from which they are taking $7 billion over two
years.
(1535 )
The province of British Columbia has decided that it has to take
some action because it is being cut back so drastically by the
federal government that it again is responded to by the HRD
minister with threats.
All of us in the House have times when we have to sit in front of
students who are saying, what about the funding for education? We
have to say we are sorry but that is part of the $7 billion package
that is being cut back.
I suggest that this is not an honest policy. The Liberals are saying
they are committed to medicare and yet at the same time they are
taking $7 billion out of health, CAP and education. It is just not
honest.
The member for Nickel Belt brought up the issue of the forum.
He speaks about having a frank and open dialogue with Canadians.
What I am speaking to here specifically is that words can become
walls because they can create a caricature.
It is the desire of the majority of the Liberal members to create a
caricature. They are saying the Reform Party is opposed to
medicare, is opposed to saving what the member for Nickel Belt
has already said, that our health service has greatly contributed our
wonderful quality of life. The status quo cannot be maintained and
we are the only party in this House prepared to say that. Let us take
a look at what the options are, as opposed to simply rolling back
and pulling in the amount of money that is presently available.
The member for Nickel Belt asked the question, let us determine
what is essential. What is essential? Are all medical services
essential? In what situation is cosmetic surgery essential? In what
situation is liposuction essential? In what situation is sex change
surgery essential? There has to be a list saying what medical
procedures are essential. What is going to be covered by the
contributions of people paying taxes in Canada?
I would suggest with the greatest respect and honestly in honour
of what the member for Parkdale-High Park had to say about his
friend, we must bill before it is too late. I ask him and I ask all
Liberals in the House to realize that they do not have a corner on
wisdom. They do not have a corner on a desire to see health care
maintained and enhanced. In fact, the Reform Party has a plan
called medicare plus which opens up a whole new way of being
able to get to the root problem. The status quo cannot be
maintained. We must make changes and we are prepared to make
suggestions for changes.
In summary, I respectfully request that the Liberals within the
hearing of my voice today reconsider and realize that they do not
have a corner on wisdom. Perhaps we, in the Reform Party, have a
couple of ideas that are at least worthwhile considering.
Why will they not co-operate with us in getting into an open
dialogue so that Canadians can have an opportunity to have input
into this process so that truly we can build a sustainable health care
system in Canada.
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in
support of Bill C-95.
In creating the Department of Health, this bill not only makes
good administrative sense, it also makes good economic sense. The
concepts of health and economics are intertwined. The health of the
Canadian people is vital to the health of the Canadian economy and
the health of the Canadian economy is vital to the health of
Canadian people.
Our medicare system is based on sound economic principles, the
same kind investors look for in evaluating a private sector
enterprise. There are four main reasons for the success of this
system.
First, our publicly funded system has enormous economies of
scale. We have only one insurer in each province that provides
standard health insurance coverage to all residents. No risk rating is
needed. Payments to providers are simple. Financing the system is
streamlined.
Second, our system results in lower overhead costs. Researchers
at Harvard have found that Canada spends only 1.1 per cent of
gross domestic product on health care administration. The United
States with its private health insurance scheme spends about two
and a half times that much. If we spent as much as the Americans
do on administration, health care expenditures in Canada would
increase by $18.5 billion a year. That is more than the entire health
care budget for the province of Ontario.
16333
(1540)
Third, a publicly financed system can ensure universal coverage.
That is an important element to a healthy workforce which
contributes to a more competitive economy and economic growth.
When there are fewer work days lost to illness productivity
increases. Healthier people make fewer demands on the system.
They live longer and they contribute more to the overall wealth of
the nation.
The fourth factor that makes public health insurance more
efficient is government's tremendous bargaining power in
negotiating the cost of service by setting and enforcing global
budgets for hospitals and physicians' fees. This gives government
powerful levers to keep health care costs under control. In fact real
per capita public health expenditures in this country have been
declining since 1993. Estimates for 1994 suggest public spending
on health declined in real terms by about 3.4 per cent.
Economic analysis makes it clear that Canada's health system
provides major economic benefits. These benefits stem from
efficiencies and cost savings associated with public funding.
Our health system attracts investment to Canada and it helps
business to compete from Canada. Enormous economies of scale,
lower overhead costs, improved worker productivity, tremendous
bargaining power and proven results; if you heard, Madam
Speaker, of a private company that could point to those attributes
you would be rushing off to call your broker.
Our public health insurance system is a major asset to business.
It is not a subsidy. It is an efficiency. We have entered an era when
the public sector's role is quite appropriately being re-examined.
Valid questions are being asked about government's place and the
values of public funding versus private funding.
Health care is one area where government is not just as efficient,
it is more efficient. It is not by accident that the United Nations
rates Canada number one in the human development index. It has
taken effort, and the development of the medicare system has been
an important part of that.
It is also not surprising that an Environics survey in late 1993
concluded that 79 per cent of Canadians believe it is very important
for the federal government to sustain the health system. Medicare,
as we know, is an insurance program. In effect we have used our
ingenuity, our foresight and tax dollars to create a giant insurance
pool covering all Canadians. Health care needs and the related
costs that medicare covers would generally exist no matter what
system we have in place to pay and as we know health services are
never free. Public or private, somebody must pay.
All we have to do is look at the auto industry. For every car that
rolls off the assembly lines of Detroit the cost includes an average
of more than $700 U.S. for privately funded health insurance. Is it
any wonder that the big three automakers have consistently been
among the strongest voices for a comprehensive public health
insurance plan in the United States? Universal coverage is much
more difficult, if not impossible, in a system based on private
insurance schemes. We have evidence of that in the United States
where fully 15 per cent of Americans are without any health
insurance at all.
One fact will put this in perspective. We spend only 1.1 per cent
of our GDP on health care administration. That is about $272 per
person. The U.S. spends about two and a half times that much,
about $615 U.S. per person and not one of those billions of
additional dollars goes to patient services.
There is no direct relationship between increased health care
spending and health outcomes. Health is determined by a number
of factors of which health care is only one. The environment within
which we are raised and live in is another. We do not necessarily
gain better health from extra health care spending.
With those two facts it is clear that controlling health costs
makes sense for both the public and the private sector. The need is
to spend money wisely. Our medicare system, through
federal-provincial funding, covers 72 per cent of total health
spending in Canada, but some costs add nothing to positive
outcomes.
(1545)
The first economic benefit of our medicare system is that we
have administrative overhead costs under control. We have one
organization in each province that provides insurance coverage, not
dozens or hundreds, as in an American state. We do not have the
elaborate and costly processes that private insurers need to rate the
risk of people or groups.
Think for a moment about private car insurance and the different
premium structures for young, old, men, women, experienced and
accident-prone drivers. We do not require the intensive control
systems private insurers use to monitor premiums and set payment
schedules. Simply put, we do not spend as much on overhead.
The relative difference in spending between us and our
neighbour to the south saves our economy $30 billion a year. That
is why we have large employers, seniors, working people, and
health activists warning against the erosion of medicare. They
know that costs will increase significantly with a two-tier system.
They know another thing: we will all foot the bill.
Hon. members might be interested in another related economic
benefit of Canada's medicare system; that is, a better record of
controlling costs. Each provincial and territorial government is the
predominant buyer of health care in their jurisdiction. This gives
them enormous leverage to give the most service at the best price to
taxpayers. They can negotiate fee structures and service costs in a
16334
way no private insurer could ever hope to. They can shift spending
to achieve more cost-effective outcomes.
In comparison with the public sector record, the private health
sector has had little success in cost control. It accounts for more
than a quarter of all health spending, and its costs have been
growing at more than six per cent per year since 1990. Individuals
and insurers in the private sector have found little leverage to bring
these costs under control.
Canadians understand this difference. We have agreed as a
country to pool our risk across society. We have agreed to let
governments work out fair prices as the buyer on our behalf. The
economic benefits of our medicare system are something all
Canadians can share. We win in the quality of our health care
system, which is second to none in the world. We also win in
economic terms.
I am proud to support the passage of Bill C-95, which gives a
new name to a department that has been working hard and well for
all Canadians.
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Training
and Youth), Lib.): Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak in
support of Bill C-95. It is with great pleasure that I do so.
To me the bill symbolizes a fundamental feature of our
federation: the ability to achieve an appropriate level of the
decentralization of powers between the federal government and the
provinces. This is illustrated by our system of federal-provincial
transfer payments for health. The system embodies a balance
between the powers of the federal government and the powers of
provincial governments, which is serving our country well. It
provides for the national character of our health system while at the
same time recognizing the constitutional jurisdiction of the
provinces and territories over health care.
Our system of transfer payments for health has gone through an
evolution over the last 30 years, an evolution that parallels the
evolution of our health system as overseen by the Department of
Health and the evolution of our federation.
In the 1950s, in an effort to foster the development of a national
hospital insurance plan, the government passed legislation
enabling it to cost-share health programs. The passage of the
Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Act in 1957 encouraged the
development of hospital insurance programs in all provinces and
territories. Through the offer to cost-share hospital and diagnostic
services on roughly a 50-50 basis, the HID legislation allowed the
government to share in the cost of provincial hospital insurance
plans that met a minimum eligibility and coverage standard.
(1550 )
By 1961 all ten provinces and two territories had public
insurance plans that provided comprehensive coverage for
in-hospital care for all residents. Then in the 1960s came
legislation enabling the federal government to cost-share medical
care insurance programs. In 1966 a federal offer to pay about one
half of the cost of physician services insurance programs operated
by the provinces became law in the medical care act. The act was
actually implemented in 1968.
At this point I would like to digress and perhaps bring a more
human and local tone to the piece of legislation we are dealing with
today. I would like to inject just how important this piece of
legislation is to the territory I come from. I could probably
exemplify that by using the particular issue of tuberculosis.
In the Northwest Territories tuberculosis is still a major problem,
as it is among the aboriginal population throughout Canada. In fact,
I am an individual of the aboriginal population who spent 14
months in a sanatorium for tuberculosis, which was the treatment
in the early 1960s. There were many other people who also did. It
became almost routine that families had members who were
afflicted or died from tuberculosis or were treated for an extended
period of time.
The rate of tuberculosis among Canadian natives is 43 times
higher than among non-natives. According to Statistics Canada, the
rate of TB among status natives was 47 per 100,000 in 1993. By
contrast, Bangladesh has a TB rate of 43.6 per 100,000. The rate for
non-native Canadians across the country was 6.9 per 100,000.
One big problem that has an effect on these numbers is the
accessibility to the health system and proper testing facilities. The
availability in the north is difficult, often as the result of a lack of
proper equipment. Many of the communities where people are
afflicted are very remote and very hard to reach.
Lack of accessibility is also a problem for other communicable
diseases, such as sexually transmitted diseases. In the north the
STD rates are estimated by the Government of the Northwest
Territories Department of Health and Social Services at 10 to 12
times higher than the national average.
Life expectancy numbers are another indicator of the general
health levels of a population. Earlier this year the National
Advisory Council on Aging, NACA, released its report, which
contained more distressing numbers for the aboriginal population.
A highlight of the report is that life expectancy for native women
and men is 47 and 46 years, respectively, compared to 75 and 68 for
the non-native population. The median age of the native population
is 10 years younger than that of the Canadian population. The
native elderly often experience premature aging, leading to death
16335
due to high rates of degenerative diseases. Native people use much
more informal care, family and friends, for certain dimensions of
life-meals, shopping, et cetera-than non-native people.
The needs of older native persons for core services, for example
adult care services, exceed the needs of the comparable non-native
population. Aboriginal seniors residing off reserves are frequently
excluded from the communities in which they live and the native
communities from which they come.
It is also important to note that the Northwest Territories has the
second highest alcohol consumption rate in Canada; five to six
times the national average in reported violent assaults; and a
suicide rate that is two to three times the national average. These
are all symptoms, perhaps not directly related to health, but they
have a huge impact on the wellness of a community and as a result
have a huge impact on the health care system, either directly or
indirectly.
(1555 )
The approach in relating this to the whole health care system is
to look at preventative health measures. That is the innovation all
levels of government are looking at. Organizations, aboriginal,
non-aboriginal, those who live in the north are looking at ways of
cutting costs, looking at ways of taking preventative measures and
innovative measures that are going to help provide a more efficient
and effective system that will serve their people.
One difficulty in the north that is taken for granted in southern
Canada is interpreters. In many cases, without them a proper
diagnosis cannot be made. Follow-up for major surgery is often
difficult because patients have long distances to travel, often to the
south. Often the follow-up does not take place for three to six
months.
Accessibility is often difficult. As mentioned earlier, people
often have to travel long distances away from their families, their
primary support system, to receive care. Also, accessibility to
medicine and prescription drugs is a problem.
We also have another important issue that aboriginal people and
non-aboriginal people in the remote regions really take seriously,
and that is nutrition. Nutrition and sustenance for those people are
very important. The principal objective, for instance, of the food
mail subsidy program is to improve nutrition and health in northern
communities, which do not have year-round surface transportation.
They are mostly isolated. There is usually air service and prices are
from 30 per cent to 60 per cent higher.
Thank God for the country food chain that the aboriginal people
have sustained for themselves. This is very important. Last year the
government extended the program for one year with a budget of
$17.1 million pending a review of the program. The north
experiences the highest levels of unemployment, poverty, and child
malnutrition. This subsidy only applies to nutritious foods that
require refrigeration or have a short shelf life, as well as infant
formula, infant foods, and non-carbonated water. The cost of living
in the north is currently 30 per cent to 40 per cent higher than
anywhere else in Canada, and in some areas it is even higher.
We have a great health system in Canada, and we would like to
support it and continue it and make it even better, especially for me
in my riding in the Northwest Territories as part of Canada.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member from across the
way for so eloquently describing the plight of the people in her
land. Truly, one of the profound tragedies in this country is to see
the plight of the aboriginal people, a society that has been wracked
in many cases by terrible levels of substance abuse, sexual abuse,
interpersonal violence. Health care parameters, whichever way you
wish to measure them, are some of the worst in our country.
If we look at the reasons behind this, one of the things one cannot
help but look at is employment and being gainfully employed and
being able to provide for yourself and your family. The ability to
have gainful employment is integral to an individual's self-respect
and self-pride. In turn, that imparts a pride and self-respect on the
community at large.
A community and an individual cannot have self-pride and
self-respect if it is given from somewhere else. They have to take it
themselves. It cannot be given by a plethora of social programs
from the federal government. These programs, while necessary, are
not the answer.
The reason I say that is if you look at the terrible statistics the
hon. member from the Northwest Territories has mentioned, you
will find that these are mere symptoms of programs and an
approach to the aboriginal people in this country that have indeed
failed and failed dismally.
(1600 )
We have to work with aboriginal people to enable them to take
care of themselves, to provide them with skills training and skills
programs that will enable them to be gainfully employed. If we are
able to do that, aboriginal people can stand on their own two feet
and provide for themselves and their communities. Then, as we just
mentioned, the incidence of sexual abuse, violence, STDs and
infant mortality would come down.
We have to change our approach, change the direction in which
we are looking. This would not be a replacement of essential social
programs. Usually we do not have gainful employment in areas that
are far removed and very desolate. Sometimes it is possible
through the forestry and fishing industries but usually it is not the
case.
16336
It is important that aboriginal people be allowed to develop
infrastructures and industries that can be self-sustaining in areas
appropriate for them. Many northern and remote areas cannot
develop sustainable industries that will provide for the needs and
demands of people whether they are aboriginal or non-aboriginal.
We are pouring in money to provide for people to live in areas
far removed from where they can take care of themselves and their
families. This approach must stop because it simply cannot work.
Again the duty of the federal government will be to provide
aboriginal people with the skills training necessary for them to
stand on their own two feet. It is absolutely integral to anybody's
ability to have pride and self-respect and to society's ability to have
pride and self-respect.
I hope the government does not pursue the same course it and
previous governments have been taking for decades. The
politically correct thing to say is that we will merely pour more
money into social programs and social schemes for aboriginal
people, but this will simply not work because it does not address
the root causes of why the individuals were there in the first place.
I hope the government takes a very careful look at its programs
in the future to try to bring down the terrible parameters among
aboriginal people and provide them with the ability to stand on
their own two feet in the future.
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-95, an act to
create the Department of Health, because it is through the
Department of Health that Canadians express the values that
underlie the Canadian health system. I speak of the values
embodied in the Canada Health Act, an act which is the
responsibility of the Minister of Health and through her the
Department of Health.
The Department of Health is instrumental in protecting and
preserving the Canada Health Act and with it the values that
underlie Canadian society. The principles of the Canada Health
Act, universality, accessibility, comprehensiveness, portability and
public administration, are rooted in our common values. These
Canadian values are equity, fairness, compassion and respect for
the fundamental dignity of all. Canadian society has cherished
these values for many years and the concern shown recently by
those who feel the health system is threatened clearly indicates
those values remain strong.
The Canadian concern for the preservation of our health system
is heightened when we hear the Reform Party's position on
medicare throughout this debate. The Reform Party's position is
simplistic and in reality is an attempt to undermine and destroy the
five fundamental principles of the Canada Health Act.
The Reform Party's promotion of user fees will not be tolerated
by Canadians. The user fee system advanced by the Reform Party
will lead to a United States health care system. This is unacceptable
for Canadians. User fees will affect accessibility and universality.
Universality is not based on insurability criteria or the number of
pre-existing medical conditions that exist in a person. All
Canadians are entitled to medically required health services.
(1605)
The first and fundamental principle in our Canada Health Act is
universality. All Canadians should benefit on uniform terms and
conditions from medicare. Universality really means that we as
Canadians believe we are all the same when it comes to health care
needs. It does not matter what our health status is or how big our
wallet is or where we happen to live in the country. Everyone who
needs health care will be treated the same. This is equity. It
recognizes our dignity as human beings and shows we are fair and
compassionate people.
Accessibility is the second principle. What does it mean? It
means that we should not face any barriers in receiving health care,
no point of service charges such as extra billing or user charges.
Underneath it means that we practise in Canada what we preach.
We say that all Canadians are to be treated equitably and we ensure
that they will be. The accessibility principle makes sure that no
discriminatory measures can be put in place that would result in
Canadians being treated differently. All are to have reasonable
access to necessary health care services based solely on need.
I call upon the Minister of Health to enforce vigorously the
provisions of the Canada Health Act, to ensure that user fees or
service charges are not implemented in any riding in any province
in Canada. I wish to go on record today as supporting the Minister
of Health in her initiatives to protect and defend the principles set
forth in the Canada Health Act.
The principle of comprehensiveness recognizes that Canadians
have a range of health care needs and those needs should be met.
Delve deeper, however, and we see that comprehensiveness means
we practise fairness. It would not be fair to ensure only some
medically necessary services and not others. For example, it would
not be fair to cover only services that cost catastrophic amounts,
while leaving other just as necessary services uninsured.
Immunization of a child against measles is just as necessary as a
coronary bypass operation. Indeed immunization has society-wide
benefits.
Throughout the debate the Bloc Quebecois continuously refers to
the intrusiveness of the bill into provincial jurisdiction and reminds
us of the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces regarding
administration and management of the health care system. The
Bloc Quebecois has failed to advise the House of the flexibility that
the Canada Health Act provides. Eighty-nine per cent of Canadians
16337
including the Quebecois support the Canada Health Act and the
medicare system.
The delivery of health care is a provincial responsibility.
Canadians respect this and the diversity that it brings. In the end we
will all benefit from diversity because a successful innovation
developed in one province can be borrowed and adapted by others.
For example, let us look at the CLSCs developed in Quebec, the
extra-mural hospital in New Brunswick and the quick response
teams in British Columbia.
Innovation has never been as important as it is today. During
these difficult fiscal times the health system must adapt and
change. It must do this at a faster rate than ever before. Innovation
is needed to make sure that the health system continues to adapt to
changing circumstances. Pressures on the health system are always
changing: changing demographics, changing technologies,
changing fiscal situations. The comprehensiveness principle
recognizes that health systems must be adaptable and allows for
innovation.
The Reformers' approach to medicare simply implies that there
is not enough money in the system to afford health care in Canada.
They address the issue by compromising fundamental and basic
values and principles set forth in the Canada Health Act. This is
unacceptable. The user fee approach will lead to a United States
health care system that is not to be supported in Canada.
Money cannot be the determining factor of success in a health
care system. If money were the major criteria the United States
would have the best health care system in the world as it spends 14
per cent of its GDP on health.
(1610)
Based on OECD statistics United States ranks 14th in the world
among developing countries. Japan spends the least amount of
money in the world on its health care system and Canada spends
9.4 per cent of its gross domestic product on health care. Managing
the system, protecting our values and fundamental principles will
allow us to save money and to administer health care more
efficiently and effectively.
The fifth and final principle is that of public administration. Our
health insurance plans must be operated by provincial governments
on a non-profit basis. Public administration is the means by which
we ensure all other principles. When health insurance is operated
and funded through governments we can easily make sure that
health care is universal, accessible, comprehensive and portable
because we have direct control over it.
After having heard the debate and comments of the member for
Calgary Centre I urge him to read carefully Bill C-95. I draw to the
hon. member's attention the words health and welfare. For the
information of the House, welfare is now to be correctly directed to
the jurisdiction of the Department of Human Resources. Human
resources is responsible for employment, training and creating
opportunity for unemployed Canadians.
On the other hand, health is to remain within the Department of
Health. Through Bill C-95, the creation of the Department of
Health, the department responsible for the Canada Health Act, we
are affirming the principles and values that we hold dear as
Canadians. I urge all members of the House to do the same.
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
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Call in the members.
[Translation]
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45(5), the recorded division on the question stands deferred
until tomorrow at 5 p.m., at which time the bells to call in the
members will sound for not more than 15 minutes.
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House
that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment
are as follows: the hon. member for Québec-child poverty; the
hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup-manpower
training.
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed from November 6 consideration of the
motion 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.
16338
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): When Bill C-94 was last
before the House, the hon. member for Athabasca had 34 minutes
remaining in debate.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Madam Speaker, in
resuming my presentation on this topic I should like to briefly
review where I was yesterday when I was interrupted by the vote.
As I was saying, when thanking the witnesses who appeared before
the committee to discuss in all sincerity and earnest the topic
before us, trying to influence the government's position on Bill
C-94, it was very apparent the members of the committee and the
government were not prepared or interested in listening to anything
the witnesses had to say simply because their minds had long since
been made up to support the minister's political commitment
which had long since been bought and paid for.
(1615)
We went on to talk about the issues the minister had raised in
support of her bill. Yesterday the member for York-Simcoe had
been babbling on about the Reform Party's being in the pockets of
Ethyl Corporation, this evil corporation with its head offices in the
U.S. That was absolute rubbish.
Right from the beginning as I met with both sides on this issue
and discussed their positions, which was more than the minister
was willing to do, it became very clear someone was distorting the
facts on the issue. Over the summer months I spent a tremendous
amount of time researching the information available and judging
the information before us. The more I did that the more I came to
believe that the positions of the Canadian Petroleum Producers
Institute and Ethyl Corporation were correct and that the motor
vehicle manufacturers' position was very flawed.
That was brought to my attention through endless studies done in
Canada and the U.S. on the subject. It certainly was the judgment
of the Environmental Protection Agency, two courts in the U.S.,
and a lot of independent testing done on the subject.
I went on yesterday to talk about some of the positions and the
flaws in those positions put forward by the government, one of
which is that MMT causes damage to the OBD II technology in
1996 cars. The evidence brought forward in the U.S. and Canada in
the most extensive series of tests ever done on a fuel additive in the
world failed to verify the motor vehicle manufacturers' position on
that interference of the OBD II systems.
The issue of sparkplug failure was a favourite issue of the
minister in that sparkplugs were failing up to 17 times higher in
fuel with MMT than in fuel without MMT. We referred to very
extensive testing in the U.S. on the subject, independent testing that
failed to find any connection whatsoever between MMT in gasoline
and the failure of those sparkplugs. The failure of the sparkplugs
was an inherent flaw in that particular brand of sparkplug and had
little to do with MMT.
When we were in committee and we asked for evidence to be
brought forward from the MVMA to show us where this failure of
the sparkplugs was proven, it brought forward a number of pictures
of sparkplugs. The first was a picture of a sparkplug that looked
almost brand new, which aroused some suspicion. Any sparkplug
that has ran 50,000 kilometres or more has some discolouring on
the porcelain section and does not look like the sparkplug in the
picture.
The other picture was of a sparkplug that was very fouled and in
terrible condition. The representative from the MVMA pointed out
these two sparkplugs were identical sparkplugs used in identical
vehicles, one run with MMT fuel and one without. When we took a
closer look at the pictures clearly they were not even the same type
of sparkplug. They were different sparkplugs.
Immediately we began to doubt the validity of the evidence
being presented when presented as one thing when even laymen
like ourselves on the committee could very easily see the evidence
was flawed, manipulated and not correct. I do not think the claim of
the sparkplug failure had much validity, which raises doubts about
the entire evidence.
(1620)
Then we went on to the issue of tailpipe emissions from the
vehicles and how they would affect our environment. In the process
of the Environmental Protection Agency study and to satisfy the
U.S. clean air act requirements for the reintroduction of MMT in
unleaded gasoline in the United States, Ethyl Corporation
conducted the most extensive series of tests ever undertaken on a
gasoline additive. The testing program was designed with the
assistance of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S.
automakers to evaluate and document the effects of MMT
performance additives on automobile tailpipe emissions and to
determine the implications for air quality if the MMT additives
were used in gasoline.
The initial MMT emission test program involved 48 cars,
representing a broad cross-section of automobiles driven in North
America, operated for a total of more than three million miles. Half
of the 1988 cars used a test fuel with additives and the other half
used the same fuel without additives. Tailpipe emissions were
checked every 5,000 miles.
In committee various witnesses put forth a lot of very technical
evidence. I pointed out earlier that the validity of the evidence
concerning sparkplug misfiring was suspect and there was also that
same suspicion regarding the data concerning tailpipe emissions. I
will give the House another example of that suspect evidence.
In committee the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth, a
member of the government, raised these concerns regarding the
data presented concerning tailpipe emissions. From the blues of the
Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development of October 24, 1995 he said: ``What interests me is
that this
16339
chart shows very clearly that Canadian cars using MMT have a
significantly lower NOx emission than those used in the United
States not using MMT. Am I not seeing improvements with MMT
as opposed to the opposite?''
The witness responded by saying: ``I think you are seeing a false
improvement as a result of MMT''.
The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth responded by
saying: ``It is your chart. If that data is false then surely the other
data that shows improvements in the emissions of hydrocarbons
and CO2s and carbon dioxide, then these other two charts are also
suspect. What I am trying to get at is what does any of this data
mean? If you say that one is false, are these two therefore right or
are they all false?''
In spite of his serious suspicions to the evidence before him this
member failed to raise any concerns with the content or validity of
the bill in the clause by clause review or at report stage and here we
are at third reading. Will the hon. member for
Hamilton-Wentworth now vote to hold the bill until further
independent research is done to verify that suspect evidence?
We studied this matter over the summer. The Environmental
Protection Agency participated in this test program in determining
the test protocols and the definitions involved. Also many
independent testing facilities were used to analyse the data using
similar protocols and procedures to those laid out by the EPA.
The data were subjected to rigorous, independent statistical
analyses to evaluate the impact of the additive over 75,000 miles of
vehicle operation.
An additional test fleet of 44 cars of 1992 and 1993 models were
tested and yielded similar results to the 1988 fleet. Four models of
the 1992-93 test fleet were driven 100,000 miles without any
catalytic system problems due to MMT. All the MMT cars met
exhaust emission standards at 100,000 miles. Two other 1988
models were also run to 100,000 miles without exhaust failure due
to MMT.
These programs took nearly five years and cost millions of
dollars. It is the most extensive series of tests ever performed in
support of a fuel additive waiver. The evidence is pretty strong as to
the effect on tailpipe emissions of MMT.
(1625)
The next issue in question which has been raised by the minister
in the House is health. In committee we heard experts from Health
Canada's monitoring and criteria division who presented their
conclusions from a December 6, 1994 risk assessment which
focused on new epidemiological studies and a Canadian exposure
data entitled ``Risk Assessment for the Combustion Products of
MMT in gasoline''. The study concluded that the use of MMT in
gasoline does not represent a health risk to any segment of the
Canadian population.
Specifically the report states: ``Airborne manganese resulting
from the combustion of MMT in gasoline powered vehicles is not
entering the Canadian environment in quantities or under
conditions that may constitute a health risk''. The study also
concludes there is no connection between levels of ambient
respirable manganese and MMT sales or use in unleaded gasoline,
whether examined by geographic area or by season.
The last and probably most important issue in the whole debate
in the House and in committee was based on the uniformity of
gasoline in the North American market. On April 25 of this year the
hon. Minister of Industry stated: ``It is crucial that we have
uniformity standards''. The hon. minister is referring to the fact
that at the time MMT was not used in the U.S.A. but was in
Canada, and for that reason it was important to have the same
gasoline in the North American market.
I would like to know now if the minister still agrees with this
statement because the U.S. court of appeals has now ordered the
U.S. EPA to grant Ethyl Corporation's application for a waiver,
paving the way for the use of MMT in unleaded gasoline in the
United States. The EPA has until early December to appeal. Our
sources say that is unlikely.
Several U.S. refiners have provided written notice of their
intention to use MMT. Ethyl has received orders pending the
appeal date from not only the U.S.A. but from Mexico, Argentina,
Russia, Bulgaria, Indonesia and Peru. Most of the rest of the
countries of the world are still using leaded gasoline, which makes
the issue irrelevant for them.
The uniformity of gasoline additives within North America
would now require Canada to maintain rather than restrict the use
of MMT. If the Minister of Industry still stands by his statement, I
hope to see him vote against the bill in the House on third reading.
If he no longer stands by his statement, the House would really like
to know why he now believes that uniformity in the North
American market is no longer crucial.
With this question of uniformity in mind, why do we not hold the
bill on the Order Paper until after the appeal period has expired,
particularly now since the American automakers have approached
Ethyl to do independent testing in the U.S.? Does the government
believe the uniformity of gasoline is no longer crucial in North
American markets?
The refineries were among the groups that appeared before the
committee to discuss this bill and to lobby in opposition to the bill
simply because of the increase costs to the refineries in the event of
banning MMT. For the benefit of members opposite who seem to
16340
be in a great frenzy to promote the use of ethanol in gasolines, the
refineries clearly stated that should MMT be banned in Canada,
ethanol would not be used as a substitute for MMT. Economics
would simply dictate that instead of using MMT a much enhanced
refining process would be required which would cause greater
volumes of crude oil and greater emissions from the refining
process of a number of undesirable elements, including carbon
monoxide and sulphur dioxide.
Also concerning environmental pollution, there were a number
of studies by Calgary based T.J. McCann and Associates Limited
and Environ International Limited of California-MMT is banned
by name in California-showing that the likely range of increase in
nitrous oxide emissions if MMT were to be banned would be
equivalent of adding 32,000 to 50,000 tonnes per year to the
environment, the equivalent of putting over a million additional
cars on the road by the year 2000.
(1630 )
Last May Environ of California concluded that Environment
Canada in the McCann study underestimated the annual increase in
tonnes of nitrous oxide emissions that would result from the
removal of MMT, saying it would result in between 49,000 and
62,000 tonnes more nitrous oxide into the environment.
Putting these studies into a non-technical format, removing
MMT would increase nitrous oxide levels from automobiles by up
to 20 per cent, an action which contradicts Environment Canada's
environmental management plan and Canada's signing of a 1998
international treaty promising to freeze nitrous oxide emissions at
1988 levels.
Canada's major cities are faced with increased pollution levels. I
find it hard to believe the Minister of the Environment is pushing
legislation that would increase pollution. She knows nitrous oxide
emissions are the cause of urban smog. Therefore she should be
supporting any means to reduce nitrous oxide. Now she will
probably tell the House that the new OBDs will reduce pollution
and therefore will counteract the increased levels of nitrous oxide.
I remind the minister the OBD systems in no way affect the
emission or pollution levels. They are simply a monitoring system
and will not therefore affect the emission control systems in the
amount of pollution they allow into the environment.
I note there is no support for this bill from the provinces,
specifically my province of Alberta as well as Saskatchewan, Nova
Scotia, New Brunswick and Manitoba. I have also in my possession
a copy of a letter from the minister of natural resources from
Quebec urging the government to reconsider its position on MMT
considering recent events in the U.S.A.
Also, what is truly amazing is the complete turnaround of the
official opposition, which supported the government's initiative on
second reading. Despite the fact that its members were a rare sight
at the committee hearings, on third reading they appear to be
supporting our position on the bill and opposing the government.
I and other members of the committee who studied the bill, if
open minded, would have to come to these conclusions. The
evidence presented as to the effects of MMT on OBD II is at best
inconclusive. The use of MMT in gasoline has no detrimental
health effect on Canadians, as confirmed by Health Canada. If the
use of MMT has any measurable impact on the environment, it
would be a positive impact due to the reduction of the smog
producing nitrous oxide.
If fuel harmonization in the North American market is crucial, as
the Ministry of Industry stated in the House on April 25, in view of
recent events in the U.S.A. the bill will not aid in the harmonization
but will provide the opposite result.
The bill sets a dangerous precedent for the future of the Canadian
environment. If we are to continue the great progress in the
reduction of automobile emissions we have seen in the last number
of years, we must have a harmonization or a co-operative effort
between the auto manufacturing industry and the manufacturers of
automobile fuels. If the bill is any indication of the way the auto
manufacturers plan to co-operate with the fuel manufacturers, it
certainly does not bode well for the future progress in the
technology of automobile emissions.
We must postpone passage of the bill while independent testing
is conducted on the effects of MMT on OBD II and also to give us
time to assess the situation in the USA after the time expires of the
appeal court decision.
Therefore I will be voting against the bill at third reading. I
certainly will be watching to see how Alberta's only representative
in cabinet and the representative for Alberta's resource industries
will be voting, as well as the member for Sarnia-Lambton, who
has been amazingly silent on this whole issue, considering he
represents the constituency where the Ethyl plant is located and
where the resulting layoffs from the government's decision will no
doubt occur. I will be watching this very closely.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me to rise again to speak to Bill C-94, the manganese
based fuel additives act.
We have heard all kinds of arguments for and against the
legislation now before the House but it is clear there are still
misconceptions on the other side.
(1635 )
I will focus on the crucial reasons we seek to ban the use of
manganese based fuel additives in Canada. We are doing this
16341
because it is good for the environment, good for Canadian
consumers and good for Canadian business and workers.
The ban benefits the environment by supporting the latest
development in technology for reducing emissions from motor
vehicles. That is significant because vehicles are still the largest
single factor contributing to air pollution. In recent decades we
have seen major improvements made by vehicle manufacturers and
fuel producers. These have certainly lowered the amounts of
pollutants released by individual vehicles.
During the same time the number of cars and trucks on the road
has grown considerably. As a result, gasoline and diesel powered
vehicles are still responsible for 60 per cent of the carbon
monoxide emissions in Canada. They are responsible for 35 per
cent of the nitrogen oxide emissions. They are responsible for 25
per cent of the hydrocarbon emissions and they are responsible for
20 per cent of the carbon dioxide emissions. Given those numbers
we must make every effort to lower vehicle emissions for the sake
of air quality in Canada.
Certainly we have seen progress since the 1970s. One decisive
step was the phase out of lead from Canadian gasoline starting in
1977. Another has been the improvement in fuel efficiency of cars
and trucks. Still another has been the introduction of emissions
control equipment.
Now we are in the midst of taking another major step, the
introduction into our cars and trucks of onboard diagnostic
systems. These systems are designed to monitor the performance of
pollution control systems in our cars, in particular to monitor the
catalyst, and to alert the driver to malfunctions in those emission
control systems.
In essence a properly functioning onboard diagnostic system is a
built in inspection and maintenance tool. As we know, inspection
and maintenance of a vehicle can greatly reduce vehicle emissions.
For proof of this we need only look at programs that require
vehicles to be emissions tested from time to time.
For example, the Vancouver area has the air care inspection and
maintenance program which is conducted on an annual basis. In the
tested fleet of cars the programmers reduced hydrocarbon
emissions by 20 per cent, carbon monoxide emissions by 24 per
cent, nitrogen oxide emissions by 2.7 per cent and fuel
consumption by 5 per cent. That is a municipal, metropolitan
emissions monitoring system.
The new onboard diagnostic systems which we will have in our
vehicles could allow all Canadians to benefit from such emissions
reductions. As I said, they are built in emissions monitoring
systems. However, there is one obstacle to this: the continued
presence of MMT, an octane enhancer currently used in unleaded
gasoline.
The automotive industry is convinced that MMT adversely
affects the sophisticated new onboard diagnostic systems. It affects
the effectiveness with which those systems can monitor the
emissions and warn us when emissions are increasing.
This is not an isolated statement or an assertion on my part but
the conclusion of Ford, Chrysler, General Motors, Toyota, Honda,
Subaru, Nissan, Mazda, Mercedes, BMW, Volkswagen, Volvo,
Saab, Lada, Jaguar, Land Rover and Hyundai.
General Motors is a major employer in my riding of
Peterborough, employing approximately 8,000 people. General
Motors employees are concerned that the investment in the new
modern onboard diagnostic systems in the 1996 models not be
wasted.
(1640 )
The list of supporters I have just cited includes virtually all of
Canada's automakers and importers and all of their workers. When
they speak with such unanimity, we need to listen to their message
carefully. Their opinion is based on hundreds of thousands of
vehicles running millions and millions of kilometres on MMT
gasoline in Canada, not on 48 vehicles running a few million
kilometres in the United States. This opinion is based on the
experience of the producers and users of the vehicles of an entire
nation, not of a few cars selected by the EPA in the United States.
Suppose the efficiency of the catalyst in our vehicles' pollution
control system is reduced by 50 per cent due to abnormal wear or a
manufacturing deficiency. The catalyst is one of the key controls of
emissions by our vehicles. The result of this reduction of 50 per
cent in its efficiency would be a twofold increase in emissions
compared with a properly functioning vehicle.
However, at the present time drivers would be unaware of the
increase in pollutants as a result of the decline in efficiency of the
catalyst in their cars. They would be unaware of the increase of
pollutants if MMT interferes with the proper functioning of
onboard diagnostic systems, the systems which monitor emissions
from vehicle.
The member opposite mentioned the case of sparkplugs. There
are real indications that the use of fuel containing MMT causes
sparkplug failures. GM Canada, the automotive corporation which
is closest to my riding, reports that sparkplug failures for one
particular Canadian model are 17 times higher than a comparable
U.S. model. Again this is not some laboratory experiment, not
some engines running on a bench in a factory or a few vehicles
driving around California being monitored by technicians. This is
the opinion of one of the major Canadian automobile producers. It
is one of the largest employers in the country.
As I mentioned in my previous speech on this legislation, the
federal government gave the petroleum and automotive industries
16342
a considerable period of time to get together to sort out this
problem. I suggest the federal government has now waited long
enough for the fuel producers and the automakers to resolve this
dispute between themselves. If we do not act now the federal
government's vehicle emissions reduction program will be in
jeopardy. We risk missing out on major reductions in smog, carbon
monoxide and hydrocarbons.
The time has come to make a decision. Bill C-94 is a decision in
favour of Canada's environment.
Members will note the bill helps the environment by improving
onboard diagnostic systems and the efficiency of our vehicles. We
do not base our argument on environmental improvements simply
on the reduction in emissions of MMT. We base them on the affect
of MMT on the emission monitoring systems in new models of cars
and trucks.
Therefore Bill C-94 is the decision in favour of the environment.
It is also a decision in favour of Canadian consumers because it
ensures they will have access to state of the art emission reduction
technologies. Unless we act now we could face a situation in which
automakers will be forced to turn off the onboard diagnostic
systems in new models because of the damage MMT causes.
In fact, one manufacturer is already bringing models off the
assembly line with the onboard diagnostic systems partially
disconnected. Some manufacturers are no longer prepared to pay
the substantial warranty costs for damage caused to pollution
control equipment. In the end, it is we, the Canadian motorists, who
have to pay more to have our cars maintained because of this kind
of industry action. The government will not allow the buck to be
passed to the Canadian consumer. For their sake we need to move
now and pass Bill C-94.
(1645)
Solving the MMT issue signals the government's desire to
ensure that Canadians have access to fuel formulations that will not
impede the performance of the vehicle emission control systems.
We know that this is only a small step in the process of reducing
vehicle pollution.
The petroleum industry needs to keep making improvements in
the composition and properties of the fuels that automobile engines
burn. The auto industry needs to keep making improvements in
vehicle emissions control technologies such as those offered
through the onboard diagnostic systems that I have just been
discussing.
The government, for its share, must act now to reduce pollution
by vehicles. Very recently in Whitehorse the Canadian Council of
Ministers of the Environment which includes our own minister of
the environment and sustainable development endorsed a report on
cleaner vehicles and fuels. The report calls for reducing pollution
from automobiles by means of tougher national for vehicle
emissions and fuels.
It also calls for actions to improve fuel efficiency and to promote
advanced technology as well as vehicles running on alternative
fuels. Further, the CCM report recognizes the importance of
inspection and maintenance programs to ensure that emission
control systems are in good working order. I have addressed that
matter and the way MMT relates to it.
By acting on the report Canada will have a new program for low
emission vehicles no later than the year 2001 with an earlier
phase-in, in harmony with the United States if feasible. There will
be new standards for cleaner gasoline and diesel fuel. The result
should be significant health benefits.
This Whitehorse report was prepared through a consultation
process involving representatives from industry, environmental
groups and other stakeholders. What we are doing here today will
help achieve the aims of that report. We need to act now. We
cannot, as the member opposite keeps suggesting, afford to wait or
delay.
In the past year we have heard a great deal about a much wider
atmospheric issue, that of global warning triggered by the
greenhouse effect. Scientists have concluded we cannot wait for
hard and fast proof that human activities are causing an
unprecedented climb in global temperatures because by the time
we have the proof, we will be overtaken by climate change of
possibly catastrophic dimensions. Instead we need to act now on
the precautionary principle. There is sufficient evidence to indicate
a danger and action now will be beneficial in any case.
The actions we should take to avoid a possible climate changes
are actions which we should be taking anyway to make this planet a
healthier place to live.
Of course, and I accept the member's arguments on this point,
MMT use in gasoline is not specifically a global warming issue but
the same principle applies. There is plenty of evidence to show the
danger MMT presents and if we eliminate its use now there are sure
to be benefits to Canada's environment, Canadian consumers,
Canadian industry and workers.
That is why Bill C-94 makes such eminent sense. That is why I
am going to support this legislation and why I urge all members of
the House to support it.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, in
congratulating the member for Peterborough for his lucid
intervention I would like to ask him the following question.
(1650 )
In his view are the interests of consumers, car users and car
buyers, in the riding of Athabasca, in the riding of Laurentides or in
any other riding of members of Parliament who have expressed
16343
opposition or doubts about the necessity of removing manganese
from gasoline, well served by those who oppose this bill?
Mr. Adams: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question. He draws attention to the fact that this legislation affects
virtually every Canadian. In addition to its improvement of the
environment, it affects the health of us all.
Every person who has a car or a truck is affected by this
legislation. These onboard diagnostic systems which we are
discussing and which manufacturers tell us are directly affected by
MMT in gasoline add a great deal to the cost of a car.
If the manufacturers fail to hook up the systems, the cost of the
car will be the same but Canadian drivers will not have the benefit
of those expensive systems although they have paid for them. Even
more, they will not have the benefits of the improvement in the
environment which will result from proper monitoring throughout
the year, day in, day out, every driving hour, the emissions from
their vehicle.
I find it unfortunate, given that the federal government allowed
the petroleum industry and the automobile industry a very
considerable time to come together and discuss this matter. It is
very unfortunate that the member opposite reduces this argument to
a battle between the petroleum industry which this government
supports and Canadians. This is simply not the case.
The petroleum industry in the United States adapted to the ban
on MMT very quickly. It has the technology to do that. The larger
part of the petroleum industry on this continent has been producing
gasoline without MMT in it.
It is extremely unfortunate that the member opposite makes this
argument on the basis of these large petroleum corporations that
already have the technology to take the MMT out and simply bring
Canada in line with what has been the norm on this continent for
many years.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I have a couple of questions for the speaker.
He mentioned that one of the rationales behind banning MMT in
Canada is that the North American market, which is much bigger
than the Canadian market alone, has been MMT free. The
Americans have been MMT free for some time, based on a decision
in the United States that prohibited the use of the product.
Now the court decision appears to be allowing MMT to be used
in the greater North American market and by far the bigger market
will be having MMT starting almost immediately. The EPA has
decided not to appeal the decision to allow MMT. Therefore it
looks as if the Americans are going to have MMT soon.
None of the quotes from Saab, Honda, GM or other car maker
has been tabled in this House. The government will not table them.
Rather than forcing this bill, which has no scientific backing,
through, would it not be wiser, based on that uncertainty about this
greater gasoline market, to hold off on banning MMT in Canada if
it is going to be allowed in the United States? I would like the
member's opinion on that.
Mr. Adams: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his
question. I know he has been following this debate very seriously.
First I want to pick up his remark about lack of scientific
evidence. His colleague, in the speech which preceded mine,
referred to rigorous statistical analysis and phrases of that sort.
(1655 )
Members opposite know that an experiment based on the opinion
of 27 million automobile owners is based on a very solid scientific
foundation. How much better a foundation scientifically than 48
vehicles that have driven three million miles, which is
approximately five million kilometres. On the scientific evidence
side, I urge the member to bear in that in mind. We are talking here
about manufacturers who have been monitoring hundreds of
thousands of vehicles.
Going back to the member's remark and the Reform Party's
point that the decision has been made in the United States, we know
that the United States has a very legalistic system. All sorts of
groups, particularly large corporations, can take advantage of the
system to fight decisions they do not like.
I would remind members opposite that MMT is banned in the
United States at present. We will see if it is going to come in. The
great state of California, which is comparable in population and has
more vehicles than our whole country, has enormous automobile
problems. It has been trying to tackle them with many of the most
stringent regulations in the world. The state of California has
banned MMT.
If and when we see the state of California, which is progressive
in this regard, acting the way the Reform Party expects then I think
the member will have a stronger base to stand on.
In general, I do not think that Canadians should follow the
lowest common denominator. We should aim for the highest
standards and try to achieve them where we can. That is what we
are doing in this case.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I listened very intently to the excellent presentation by
hon. member. I have just a quick question.
He mentioned a number of varieties of automobiles. I believe he
stated that all automakers in Canada and many of the foreign
automakers were supporting this initiative.
16344
Is this something that just evolved in the last month, or two or
three months? Or have these studies been ongoing for several
months or perhaps years, as the automakers make their plans and
directives for new equipment and machinery that will go into their
automobiles for future generations?
I wonder if the member could perhaps address that.
Mr. Adams: Madam Speaker, I have to compliment my
colleague for the best question I have received.
First, this is based on the many years of experience of our auto
manufacturers and importers running vehicles on Canadian
gasoline with MMT in it. The spark plug point is based on
experience over that period of time. However they have been
forced to do this by the development of the new onboard diagnostic
systems. In the same way we monitor the speed of the vehicle or
how much gasoline there is the tank, we can now monitor what
emissions are going from the exhaust pipe. Those onboard
diagnostic systems are a new, very expensive, exciting innovation
in the automobile industry. They have been coming along for some
years but in the 1996 models they are particularly sophisticated and
expensive and that is what is forcing the issue at the present time.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Madam Speaker, a point
of order.
The hon. member referred to some studies that included all
vehicles in Canada. I wonder if he is willing to table those studies
so we can all take a look at them. I am not aware of them and it is
very important for the House to have that material available so we
can examine the evidence.
(1700 )
Mr. Adams: Madam Speaker, I suspect technically the question
is out of order, but I am glad to reply.
I was referring to the experience of Canadian manufacturers over
many years and to their monitoring of vehicles. That information is
readily available from manufacturers.
Mr. Chatters: You said scientific tests.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): For a member to deposit
papers with the Chair there must be unanimous consent.
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The
member for Peterborough mentioned prior to the last intervention
that he thought the previous question was the best one of the day. I
thought mine was the best one of the day.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry but that is not a
point of order and the time has expired.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I welcome this second opportunity to speak to Bill
C-94, a bill that as you can see is extremely technical and
extremely controversial.
Perhaps I may remind our listeners that the purpose of this bill is
to prohibit the use of the product MMT in the production of
gasoline. Technically, MMT is currently used to shorten the
refining process and the time it takes to reach the octane level the
oil companies want. Removing MMT will mean the oil companies
will have to use a longer refining cycle. The product is a
manganese-based additive that has been used in practically all
unleaded gasoline in Canada since 1977.
There are a number of issues at stake here which we should
examine very closely. First of all, we have the automobile
manufacturers' lobby which, as was pointed out earlier-and most
of our colleagues did so-supports the minister's bill. They claim
that the MMT in gasoline will clog and cause malfunctions in the
so-called OBD II anti-pollution devices that will be installed in
cars very shortly, and this is already the case for 1996 models.
MMT would be indirectly harmful to the environment, because if
the OBD II anti-pollution device does not work properly, cars will
pollute more than they should, since with this device they would
otherwise run very efficiently.
So MMT is not in itself harmful but, according to automobile
manufacturers, it would indirectly harm the environment by
impeding the effectiveness of a device installed in automobiles to
control pollution.
According to a press release issued by the Canadian Automobile
Association on June 12 this year, in 1996 all cars sold in the United
States will have to be fitted with a new kind of detection device.
This ``green'' mechanism will ensure that the vehicle's
anti-pollution devices remain fully effective over the years.
However, if gasoline sold in Canada still contains MMT, these new
devices will not function properly, as tests have proven.
I will continue this text later on, but I just want to say that like
my Reform Party friends, I also more or less joined in the
demonstration given by automobile manufacturers of the tests they
had done. I also thought it was rather inconclusive, and I have the
same reservations as the hon. member for Athabasca who referred
to the spark plugs he had examined. I was not convinced by this
demonstration.
Second, we asked, and my Reform colleagues are now asking for
more serious tests to be tabled in the House, and they have a very
good reason for doing so, because we have seen no serious tests to
prove these allegations, and I do not think we will.
According to the text provided by the automobile manufacturers,
they have decided not to make this new equipment available to
16345
Canadians if we continue to add MMT to gasoline. In the final
analysis, Canadians will be the ones to suffer, both economically
and environmentally, because their vehicles will pollute more than
anyone else's.
(1705)
On the other hand, last spring, I demonstrated to this House that
it would be in the interest of the major oil companies primarily if
this bill were not passed. They in fact allege that MMT permits
gasoline to be produced with a significant reduction in
environmental costs at the refining stage. We can readily imagine
this: longer refining without the MMT additive means more
pollution from the process.
If we believe the figures given my office by the Canadian
Petroleum Products Institute, these environmental costs should go
up by at least $50 million at the refining stage for these companies.
According to representatives from the oil industry as well, MMT
requires less intensive treatment, which means less carbon dioxide,
nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide from the
stacks of plants producing gasoline. Furthermore, MMT allows
refineries to reduce the aromatic cycles of gasolines and thus
benzene emissions.
The Canadian Petroleum Products Institute also mentioned that,
according to its members, the decision to prohibit the addition of
MMT to gasoline must be made on a sound scientific basis, and this
is the request being made. They therefore examined MMT from
three standpoints: the environment, health and its actual effect on
car emission systems.
From an environmental standpoint, according to the companies,
the addition of MMT clearly protects the environment. It cuts
nitrous oxide emissions by between 15 and 20 per cent, thus cutting
smog in cities. There is complete agreement on this point in both
Canada and the United States.
From a health standpoint, here in Canada, Health and Welfare
Canada has published two reports indicating that MMT in gasoline
represents no health risk for Canadians. In the United States, a very
decisive decision by the court of appeal confirms it.
Thirdly, from a vehicle emission control standpoint, the United
States environmental protection agency has always maintained
there was not the slightest evidence that MMT had any damaging
effect on the equipment.
So we can understand, when we contemplate the issue before us,
in connection with Bill C-94, that, regardless of the fate of the bill,
Canada's pollution levels will inevitably increase. We are therefore
not faced with a choice between good and evil, we really have to
choose between two evils, if I may put it that way. If we remove
MMT, the production of gasoline will cause more pollution; if we
keep MMT, and if indeed it does inhibit the functioning of vehicle
anti pollution devices, we will also increase pollution.
So we are faced with two cases of increased pollution. The
question is to decide logically and scientifically which is the better
choice. It seems to me that the Minister of the Environment is not
usually supposed to choose solutions that increase pollution; it
should be the other way around.
Under the circumstances, what is leading the Minister of the
Environment to actually decide which of the two solutions is less
polluting? The answer to that is: nothing. When you really look at
the issue, it does not matter whether you are the petroleum
industry, the members of the Reform Party or the Bloc, it is clear
that there are no basically independent and scientific data to
provide the proof.
We only have to look at what happened with this in the United
States to be convinced. On October 20, the United States appeal
court for the District of Columbia-we quoted from the text in
second reading, I think-decided to oblige the United States
environmental protection agency to register MMT as an additive
for unleaded gasoline. To date, the EPA has refused. In its decision,
the court stated:
[English]
``On November 30, 1993 the EPA found that MMT had no
adverse effects on automobile emission control systems''.
[Translation]
Of course, we looked at what we had before us at the time. It
does not mean that more detailed studies would not prove the
opposite, but studies showed that MMT had no real effect. The EPA
recognized de facto that MMT did not have a harmful effect on
antipollution systems according to the tests which were done
before them at the time.
(1710)
I submit to this House that the Minister of the Environment is
supposed to be aware of these facts since-as her Quebec
counterpart and our friends from the Reform Party pointed out
earlier-several provinces, including Quebec, are now moving in
the direction advocated by Reform members. As my colleague
from the Reform Party mentioned, the Government of Quebec did
send the minister a letter clearly explaining in detail its position on
this matter.
The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeal I just referred to goes on
to say, and I quote:
[English]
``For purposes of the resubmitted application EPA determined
Ethyl had demonstrated that use of MMT at the specified
concentration will not cause or contribute to a failure of any
emission
16346
control device or system to achieve compliance with the emission
standards''.
[Translation]
The few tests that were done and submitted to the court show no
effects. And we have not heard of any tests that would point to a
different conclusion.
It is therefore increasingly evident that MMT will be
reintroduced in the making of gas in the U.S.; in any case, there is a
chance that it will be. Yet, the Minister of the Environment spends
her time in this House talking about harmonizing Canada's
environmental decisions with those made in the U.S. and elsewhere
in the world. Under the circumstances, by proposing and defending
Bill C-94, the Minister of the Environment is contradicting herself
somewhat because if we ban MMT and if the U.S. approves this
additive within a year, we will then have to reharmonize all these
decisions.
The bottom line is that if independent scientific tests showed
conclusively that MMT is harmful, I think the House would vote
unanimously to ban MMT. But not enough tests have been done.
Given these facts, we have a right to question the environment
minister's real motives in introducing this bill and trying to ram it
through.
On the one hand, it is obvious that the minister is trying to
accommodate the interests of the powerful Canadian automobile
manufacturers' lobby which happen to be located for the most part
in her riding. On the other hand, the hike in gasoline prices
resulting from this legislation, if passed, might prompt many
consumers to try alternative fuels, such as ethanol, whose major
producers also happen to be in the Hamilton area.
If this interpretation is not accurate, then there is only one
explanation. Quite simply, the minister is doing, with respect to the
MMT issue, the same thing she did about the Irving Whale: she is
improvising. Members will recall that, on many occasions in
dealing with the latter issue-and I will not dwell on this
either-the minister has shown that she was not qualified to deal
with the situation.
I suggest that, then too, the minister claimed to have at hand a
load of studies which enabled her to send all other stakeholders
about their business, at the risk of causing an environmental
disaster. We know what this lead to: $12 million were spent for
absolutely nothing, to refloat a ship that is still sitting on the
bottom of the river. And these $12 million are coming out of the
taxpayers' pockets, and not the Irving's pockets. The problem still
remains unsolved as we speak. This ship is leaking and Greenpeace
is about to get involved. Nothing has been settled. The whole thing
will have to be done all over again. What we are requesting are
studies to tell us what is the best way of going about this.
We are confronted with a similar situation in Bill C-94. In order
to avoid an environmental disaster, you have to do a minimum of
scientific studies to assess the environmental impact of the
contemplated measures. Otherwise, you are merely improvising.
As regards the environmental impact studies on MMT, it is
increasingly obvious that the rigour of these studies leaves
something to be desired. Under the circumstances, I agree with the
hon. member for Laurentides, who spoke on this issue yesterday
and asked that the bill be deferred to a later date, when more
comprehensive studies can establish beyond a reasonable doubt
whether or not the addition of MMT to gas creates a dangerous
source of pollution.
(1715)
The provinces pretty well agree that we should wait a little and
do the required studies before making a final decision. I am talking
here about independent scientific studies which would be public in
nature.
Oil companies also support that position. They have been telling
us from the beginning: ``If there is conclusive evidence that the use
of MMT in automobiles is harmful, we will change our whole
system''. We should wait, as pointed out by our Reform Party
colleagues, for the results of the tests being conducted in the United
States, before making a decision.
For all these reasons, we feel that we do not have all the required
information to make an informed decision. Consequently, we will
not support this bill.
[English]
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
good friend from the Bloc made some good points. The jury is still
out and the evolution of fuels will continue. We have taken lead out
of fuels. We can look at the MMT situation. We have to look at our
colleagues in California. The member for Peterborough was right.
They are leaders in this field.
I will be speaking to this bill and directly concerning the onboard
diagnostic equipment. Vehicles have new onboard diagnostic
equipment systems. They are monitoring devices which feed back
to the engine to make the engine control the emissions. Coming out
of the tailpipe are oxides of nitrogen, unburned hydrocarbons, oil,
carbon and water. Every time one gallon of gasoline is burned it
produces one gallon of water. If we look at the tailpipe of any
vehicle we will see water coming out of it. The use of a three way
catalytic converter can control a lot of these things.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is the next speaker. He
is certainly entitled to use up the time for questions or comments if
he wishes, but he is the next speaker on debate.
Mr. Jackson: Mr. Speaker, I have more of a comment than a
question. I understand what the hon. member is saying but there is
a point to be made about the onboard diagnostic equipment systems
16347
in cars because they could counteract the effects of what comes out
of the tailpipe.
[Translation]
Mr. Pomerleau: Mr. Speaker, how appropriate. I went to
California during the summer break and I was able to see, as the
Liberal member pointed out, how terrible the smog situation is in
that state, whose population is as large as the whole population of
Canada.
What we are saying is that, to the best of our knowledge, there is
no scientific evidence to back up what is implied in this bill, which
is that MMT will in fact damage the pollution control system. If
indeed California has made its choices a long time ago, it must
have relied on some kind of test, and not only on vague ideas. If we
could have access to these tests, we would readily admit that we
have to ban the use of MMT in gasoline. Passing this bill is not a
matter of principle, but a matter of pollution.
If the use of MMT is banned, I know some people believe that it
will be replaced by ethanol, but the oil companies have clearly
stated that they would not use ethanol as a substitute for MMT.
Instead of using MMT, they would require a more enhanced and a
longer refining process.
This would automatically lead to an increase in pollution. We are
faced with two options: if we ban the use of MMT, we increase
pollution due to the gasoline refining process, but, according to the
auto industry, if we do not ban the use of MMT, we will damage the
pollution control equipment, which will also lead to an increase in
pollution.
If we could have some concrete evidence, we would be in a
better position to make up our minds and vote immediately on this
issue. But we do not have any, we have no scientific data, which is
why we stand by the position we have taken.
[English]
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak about the environment. In the natural
environment everything is related to everything else. Looking at
the hydrostatic cycle for instance, when water evaporates and goes
up in the atmosphere, it mixes with all kinds of contaminants and
then comes back to earth.
(1720 )
Photochemical smog is caused by the reaction of sunlight with
nitrogen oxide, particularly in Los Angeles which is in a valley.
Los Angeles is a good example because it has more cars than any
other place. I am not sure exactly why it does not have any mass
transit systems. I have visited Los Angeles quite often and I know
the damage to the environment is bad. It is broadcast over the radio
every day that there is eye irritation from smog, or that people with
respiratory problems should stay off the streets.
I am going to address the onboard diagnostic equipment. Most
members probably do not have the technical knowledge I have. I
understand what they are saying about MMT, that an infinitesimal
amount of nitrogen oxide will be emitted. However, I make the
case that it could be controlled by installing devices on the
vehicles.
I will begin by speaking about what happens in a car. A person
gets in a car and turns it on which uses gasoline. Gasoline has
potential energy of 19,000 British thermal units per pound or per
pint, depending on the kind it is. The gasoline is control burned in a
vehicle resulting in pressure, forcing a piston down, turning the
crankshaft, making a circular motion to the power take-off to drive
the wheels which propel us along the road.
In a four stroke cycle engine the air comes into the engine
through an intake manifold with the intake valve and opens the
piston moving down to the bottom of the cylinder, causing a
vacuum in the cylinder. Injectors in this case, or if it is a
carburetted engine a venturi effect would cause aspirated air in a
stoichiometric ratio, which is about 14 parts of air to one part of
gasoline by weight, or 9,000 parts of air to one part of gasoline by
volume. That is what the computer will try to monitor by what is
called a map sensor. Placed somewhere in the intake system of the
vehicle is a piece of foil which takes a certain amount of
temperature. That foil knows exactly the volume of air which is
going into the engine. The injectors are monitored by a computer
which says: ``I have this amount of cubic feet of air. Give me this
amount of gasoline''.
During deceleration periods, for instance on old carburetted
engines coming down the hill with the throttle closed, a very large
vacuum is created and the gasoline gets very rich. Those kinds of
cars create a lot of pollution. On a modern car the system shuts off
completely because of the onboard diagnostic system. There is
absolutely no gasoline getting in, so it works quite well.
On the intake stroke, the piston moves down and the cylinder is
charged. The next stroke is the compression stroke. Both valves are
closed, the piston moves up and it compresses the thing to about a
tenth of its value. Because we are trying to get rid of nitrogen
oxide, we have had to lower the compression ratio of engines. By
lowering the compression ratio and bringing the temperature up,
we can control nitrogen oxide as well.
The piston comes up and compresses the gas into 10 per cent of
its original volume. A sparkplug triggers it at a particular time. The
timing is changed depending on the rate of speed in order to ensure
that when the actual expansion of the gasoline occurs, when the
pressure builds up, it reaches a certain angle on the crank. If it
happens before or after, the engine fights against itself and it
16348
actually loses its power. The sparkplug is triggered to fire at a
precise time, again by a computer.
The process takes place very quickly. An engine running at 4,000
RPM has 2,000 power strokes per RPM. If we divide that by 60, we
will get about 33 sparks per second. The process would last for
maybe one-thirtieth of a second. We can see the process happening
very quickly. What happens is that all of that stuff escapes and goes
into the exhaust system. It has to be monitored by a three way
muffler, which I will talk about in a minute.
The last stroke is the exhaust stroke. The piston moves from the
bottom to the centre, coming up with the intake valve closed and
the exhaust valve open. The piston pushes the gasoline out of the
tailpipe.
In the tailpipe there is a catalytic converter. In that catalytic
converter is rhodium. Rhodium actually removes oxygen. There is
platinum and palladium. Palladium actually adds oxygen. If we had
H2 coming out and we wanted to change it to something else, we
would add O. We could add O by using an air pump, which is seen
on some cars, or we could add O by using a computer triggered
diverter to pass the exhaust gases over the platinum, adding
oxygen, and now we would have H2O. We have two sets of oxygen
instead of one, which changes it into water. If we have CO, for
instance, which is carbon monoxide and we want to change it to
harmless carbon dioxide, we add O and get CO2. We have two Os.
(1725)
This is what the diagnostic pieces of equipment are doing. These
speak in hertz. They go back and forth and report to the computer
exactly what is happening. If there is a knock in the engine, then the
computer knows and it will trigger the spark and retard or advance
the spark.
If the contaminants coming from the tailpipe are one thing or
another, the oxygen sensor in this particular case will pick it up, tell
the computer it is getting too many hydrocarbons and the computer
will tell the injector to shut off. That is what we are talking about
when we talk about onboard diagnostics.
In the onboard diagnostics, there are things like an EGR valve.
An EGR valve is used particularly to control nitrogen oxide. As I
have said before, nitrogen oxide is the thing we talk about a lot. We
say it is the main smog producer.
One of the ways manufacturers get rid of nitrogen oxide is by
using exhaust gas recirculation. The unburned gas out of the engine
is recycled back through some mechanisms inside the engine and
are burned again. The effect of burning it with the rest of the fuel
that is in the engine drops the combustion chamber temperature. By
dropping the combustion chamber temperature, it reduces the
oxides of nitrogen.
The NOx is also reduced from earlier emissions by using a heat
stove. You might have seen on cars where there is an intake
manifold and there is actually a heat stove. The heat stove allows
either hot air to come off the exhaust pipe directly into the engine
or it may mix. At some point in time hot air comes up past the
exhaust pipe because it gets some heat off of it and some of it
comes in through the snorkel. The two are mixed before the air gets
into the engine. On a cold engine it makes the engine warm up very
quickly.
On modern cars, the onboard diagnostics trigger what is called
an open loop system. Most everyone knows that when you get in a
car, you do not pump the gas and do all those kinds of things we did
with older cars which had carburettors on them. The reason we do
not do that is that the computer and the onboard diagnostics
monitor everything. It monitors the temperature. It knows if the
engine is cold. If you come out and it is minus 20 degrees, it knows
that the crankshaft is not turning because it is not picking up any
RPM due to a magnetic device which is triggering it.
The oxygen sensor indicates it has pure oxygen and the computer
reports back in hertz very quickly, the same as brand new
computers here, where the speed gets quicker. On these cars the
onboard diagnostics are getting very, very quick in corresponding
with one another. That is why there is talk about the effects of this
onboard diagnostics.
Imagine an exhaust sensor for instance in the exhaust system. If
certain kinds of additives are used in the gasoline and it catches and
interferes with the way it records or sends the information back to
the computer, it would affect the way the car works. Of course, if it
affects it then it triggers other things. What would happen is we
would actually get more pollution than if we were using MMT
because the thing is not working right.
The onboard diagnostic equipment is very important to us.
Onboard diagnostic equipment must be added to cars.
I recently purchased a new car and I have a book here to monitor
it. We have to closely monitor the new equipment. Instead of miles
per gallon we are getting litres per kilometre. We have to get the
amount of kilometres and divide it by 100. For instance, on my new
car I am getting about 10.5 litres per 100 kilometres, which is about
27 miles to the gallon. If I am getting 8.5 litres per 100 kilometres,
I am getting something like 33 miles per gallon.
We will find that the new vehicles are more fuel efficient than
the old ones. The consumer will benefit with onboard diagnostic
equipment. Canadians need to have the onboard diagnostic
equipment. We do have this argument with fuels, but that argument
should be between the automotive manufacturers and the fuel
companies, and not this House.
16349
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now
proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on
today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
16349
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration from November 1, 1995, of
the motion that Bill C-339, an act to provide for funding of
interveners in hearings before certain boards and agencies, be now
read a second time and referred to a committee.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in the debate on second reading of Bill
C-339, standing in the name of the hon. member for Oxford.
This bill, which is quite straightforward, establishes the
principle that a proponent of a project that requires review and
approval should assist with funding for interveners who would like
to be heard. The hon. member for Oxford suggests adopting the
principle that the proponent pays.
On the face of it, we would support the principle of funding
groups that want to participate in public hearings, because often,
groups that represent less advantaged people in our society cannot
afford to go and put forward their views and their interests or pay
for scientific studies or even for the transportation to get to the
hearings.
Consider the studies required in the far North, for instance,
where interveners lack the financial resources to travel, pay for
accommodations, and so forth, when defending the interests of the
people they represent.
We have seen in the past citizens who were at a distinct
disadvantage because they did not have the same resources as large
businesses or developers to defend their interests. In fact, these
businesses and developers can afford to pay lobbyists on a regular
basis to push their projects ahead, while small groups that are not
as organized and are not supported by the big guys are always
looking for financial support.
In other words, we do support the principle that proponents pay
for the administrative costs related to the reviews. However, after
examining this bill more thoroughly, we realize it has a much
broader scope than it purports and offers few guarantees for the
arm's length nature of the process it proposes.
First of all, we should realize that this bill will create funding
committees. Some public organizations already have a funding
option. One example is the Environmental Assessment Agency
established by Bill C-56, which provides for a sort of funding from
the government.
How will the new funding panel work with the assessment
agency? Naturally the government could save money by having the
proponents pay, but why not simply amend Bill C-56 to include the
concept of ``funding proponent''.
We have to ask ourselves whether the panels proposed in Bill
C-339 are not another layer of administrative structures and
duplication within the federal system. We can also see in this bill
the danger of federal interference in provincial jurisdiction. For
example, in Bill C-56, the Environmental Assessment Act, the
federal government is clearly meddling in provincial affairs. We
could therefore end up with projects assessed by both levels of
government with proponents having to pay twice to fund various
interveners.
I do not suppose proponents are interested in this costly
duplication, which, moreover, delays the whole process of project
approval. It is an obvious hinderance and has an impact on our
economy and on job creation.
I would now like to consider the independence of the funding
panels. According to subclause 4(2), a review authority that
receives an application from an intervener for intervener funding
shall appoint a funding panel from its membership.
To my mind, this provision reveals that the funding panel is
clearly not independent of the review authority. Indeed, what
happens when the authority assigned to review a project comes
under the authority of a department that is the project promoter?
The best example is doubtless the case of the refloating of the
Irving Whale. Do you think that SVP, the Société pour vaincre la
pollution and RMPG, the Regroupement madelinot pour la
protection du golfe, could get funding through this bill? I have very
strong doubts.
(1735)
People who will be appointed to the funding panel under the
authority of the Minister of the Environment will certainly be
under pressure from that same minister not to give groups such as
the SVP and the RMPG, which are strongly opposed to her project,
an opportunity to be heard.
In other words, I believe that the government will have the
power to choose which groups it is willing to listen to, and it will be
able to reject those groups that do not share its views.
Transparency and independence are lacking in this bill. The
concept of funding proponent is good, but the process proposed in
this bill is flawed. Therefore, the bill does not achieve its ultimate
goal.
About this process, it is worth noting that it appears to be rather
cumbersome and complicated. For one thing, the funding panel
will have to determine if the intervener is eligible for funding, and
from what we can read in clause 4, the least we can say is that
interveners will be scrutinized. Also, the bill provides for an appeal
16350
process to the review authority and ultimately to the Federal Court
of Canada if the proponents and the interveners are not satisfied
with the funding panel's decisions.
Knowing full well how slow bureaucracy can be, I am sure that
some interveners will be left high and dry. Projects will be
completed and interveners will still be waiting for the outcome of
the appeal process. The same goes for the proponent. In fact, I
wonder if projects will be allowed to proceed during the appeal
process. I would like the member for Oxford to answer this
question.
Finally, we think that this bill contains good ideas and that the
principle on which it is based is innovative, but it has serious flaws.
Bill C-339 is off the mark.
[English]
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-339, an
act to provide for funding for interveners in hearings before certain
boards and agencies.
I think we all know that politicians at all levels of government
are suffering from a serious lack of credibility right now. People
feel politicians are not listening to what they have to say and are
refusing to tackle the very real concerns that touch their daily lives.
They have the perception that government is selling out to the
interests of big business. It may well be they are right, but for the
wrong reasons. It may well be that the voices of the people are not
being heard in many instances because they just do not have the
funds to travel across the country to make their views known. They
just do not have the money to hire lawyers, experts, researchers,
and writers to present their point of view. The interests of the little
guy are in fact getting lost in the shuffle.
Over and over people have been saying that they want to have an
input into government decision-making. We, as a government,
have told them that we agree. However, as the Minister of the
Environment said during the debate on the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act, ``It is one thing to say that people
have a say; it is another thing to give them the tools to exercise
their right.''
Bill C-339 addresses this problem in a concrete way. By
ensuring funding, it provides the tools necessary for the average
citizen, regardless of his or her financial assets, to be heard in the
decision-making process. Intervener funding will assure the public
that those with a valid interest will be heard at future hearings and
that the public will have input into government decisions.
It is important to note that in drafting this excellent piece of
legislation the member for Oxford was able to draw upon
legislation that already exists in the province of Ontario. He was
not reinventing the wheel. The Ontario government proclaimed the
Intervenor Funding Project Act in 1989 as a three-year pilot
project. In 1992 the province of Ontario conducted a review of the
Intervenor Funding Project Act. This review, entitled ``Access and
Impact: An Evaluation of the Intervenor Funding Project Act,
1988'', showed broad support for the objectives of the legislation.
The project was extended to the spring of 1996. I would like to
quote from this report, as I think the experience in the province of
Ontario is very close to that in the entire country:
The manner in which many administrative decisions were made in the 1960s
and 1970s excluded members of the public, even though many decisions were
required to be made in the public interest.
(1740)
Too often, agencies and tribunals were only presented with the
view of the regulated industry or the applicant for an approval. As
agencies are now faced with a bewildering array of social,
economic, and moral questions, a critical view is that excluding
diverse interests is no longer appropriate.
Increasing public access to administrative decision-making is
important for several reasons, first of which is fairness. Decisions
regulating the conduct of businesses affect small or large segments
of the public. Sometimes individuals are financially affected, each
to a small degree, as with telephone or utility rates. Sometimes an
individual's health and well-being are affected, as with
environmental and food and drug regulation. In principle, if people
are affected by decisions they should have the right to be heard.
Second is quality of decisions. Where regulatory decisions affect
the public and are required to be made in the public interest the
quality of those decisions is improved when members of the
affected public participate. They apprise the tribunal of facts that
might not otherwise come to its attention. They assert different
perspectives and opinions about the consequences of the decision
to counter the assertions of the regulated industry. In this way the
tribunal gains a better understanding of the range of dimensions of
the public interest it is charged with serving. Better decisions
result.
Third is accountability. When members of the public participate
in administrative decisions they gain an understanding of the
balance that is struck between competing interests in reaching a
decision. This process improves the accountability of the
decision-maker and legitimizes the decisions for those who
participate.
I believe these statements fairly sum up the reasons in favour of
the bill.
16351
During earlier debate there was some question of the fairness
of requiring a private company to finance the group that may kill
its application as well as some question of what would happen if
the company were financially unable to fund the interveners.
Again I would like to quote from the access and impact study:
We believe that more effective monitoring of the costs and benefits of the
process will be achieved if those who are the focus of these decisions, the
proponents, are made to bear the costs. It is they who are the centrepiece of the
regulated activity. A critical aspect of that role requires effective participation
by other interests while ensuring that participation is responsible.
I think it is obvious that a proponent who has to pay for this
intervention will suddenly realize that consultation and
co-operation and compromise are in their best interest, thus
reducing or even eliminating the need for the intervention and
confrontation.
I urge all members to support this legislation.
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak today on Bill C-339, an act
to provide for the funding of interveners in hearings before certain
boards and agencies.
The bill introduced by the member for Oxford raises an issue of
extreme importance to the House. The issue of intervener funding
is of great interest to all elected officials. Parliamentarians are the
first to recognize that public participation is fundamental to any
meaningful consultative process. I believe that organizations that
represent a relevant public interest should be able to participate in
review processes.
The question that does need to be answered is how do we fund
citizens whose views should be brought forth.
(1745 )
It would be useful to the debate to look at an intervenor funding
program at work today. I will take a slightly different approach
from other speakers on this subject and refer to the federal
environmental assessment process which has included a participant
funding program since 1991. The need for such a program was
identified many years before.
The 1987 white paper on the reform of the federal environmental
review process addressed the need and proposed the establishment
of a participant funding program. In national consultations carried
out as part of the above reform some funding was made available
by the previous government. The funds were administered by the
federal environmental assessment review office and were provided
to participants in the activities of federal or joint panels reviewing
such projects as the Sainte-Marguerite hydroelectric development
project and the Vancouver airport.
The environmental assessment of large projects subject to public
hearings is very complex and often results in several volumes of
technical information. We therefore cannot expect informed public
participation unless the groups representing the citizens directly
affected by the projects have access to funding. Participation in the
environmental assessment process requires staff and technical
resources for analysing reports, drafting the response, preparing
briefs and presenting these views at public hearings.
The participant funding program established in 1991 did not
guarantee intervenor funding for all environmental assessments.
This was not considered to be fair so the government recognized
the flaw and created a statutory obligation to do so as promised in
the Liberal Party's red book. Our government listened carefully to
many Canadians who indicated that intervenor funding if carefully
administered adds value to the environmental assessment process.
Accordingly the Minister of the Environment in Bill C-56, an act
to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, put forth as
a key amendment a legally entrenched participant funding program
that ensures interested individuals and groups have the resources
they require to participate effectively in the process. As a result the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act now recognizes
intervenor funding as an integral component of the assessment
process and creates a statutory obligation to establish a funding
program for that purpose.
The Minister of the Environment deserves much credit for
making this amendment among others to the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act. The legal provision for intervenor
funding goes hand in hand with other elements of the
environmental assessment process which recognize the importance
of public participation. These include the provision of numerous
opportunities for public involvement at various stages of the
assessment process and the creation of a public registry through
which interested persons can have access to documents relating to
all current assessments of the environment, both federal and joint
federal-provincial.
The participant funding program presently administered by the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has many different
uses and criteria because public input is crucial and should not be
frivolous. The present program makes funds available for different
stages of the environmental assessment process. It outlines exactly
who is eligible and it describes what kind of activities will be
funded. The program is funded over a six-year period and is made
up of funds allocated by the federal government.
Bill C-339 brings forward an aspect of intervenor funding that is
of increasing importance: who should pay for public participation
in environmental assessment. The debate on the issue is diverse in
the opinions brought forth. There are those who support the
proponent pays principle. Others suggest that any more cost to
development would be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
Others point to the ability to pay based on small versus large size
businesses. Many will point out it is unthinkable that taxpayers foot
the bill for those who will reap profits. There are diverse opinions
in the harmonization of federal-provincial environmental
assessment processes. It is certain there is no simple answer or easy
direction.
16352
(1750)
The government has recognized the need to look carefully at
process efficiency as well as at all related expenditures. The
Minister of the Environment is responding to this need. In last
year's budget the Minister of Finance announced a special
initiative:
The Minister of the Environment will develop, in consultation with
concerned ministers, provinces and stakeholders, proposals for recovering
costs attributable to environmental assessment as well as options for
streamlining procedures and time lines for the environmental assessment
process.
That is very clear. Since then the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Agency has been developing the options in
consultation with stakeholders.
What I have just said is a fair mouthful with respect to an
environmental assessment process. It has brought in some of the
factors that have to be considered in looking at a bill of this import,
of this initiative and of this way of looking at how we do things
with respect to public intervention, public interest and public
hearings.
It has always been a policy of the Liberal government to involve
the public. The best example I could give of that is the recent
special standing committee on Canada's defence policy where
policy was formed from the bottom up. Previously, to my
knowledge, it was always done from the top down. The public
process in formulating the white paper on defence was very
important to this party and is why we did it that way.
Returning to the subject at hand in Bill C-339, if we are looking
at cost recovery with respect to public participation, it is obvious
that any successful initiative will have to contain certain process
efficiency elements. If we are to ask proponents to assume certain
costs we must be able to commit to efficiency of process. If
individuals or organizations are to pay the cost of public
participation surely they must receive some guarantee that there
will be a certainty of process.
I have spoken long enough to make the point I wanted to make
on the bill. I have used the example of a recent system that is in
operation. There are still some questions to be answered. However
in looking at Bill C-339 some of the proposals put forth and some
of the examples used could be used in the model. The concerns are
being addressed and we look forward to the options that will be
presented.
Bill C-339 contributes very positively to the debate on public
participation by recognizing these concerns. However I caution
that we should wait for the completion of the government process I
have just described before we proceed, as we say in the navy, at full
speed ahead.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to rise in the House in support of Bill C-339 sponsored
by the hon. member for Oxford.
In so doing I need to address the question of exactly what is
meant by intervenor funding. I would characterize intervenor
funding as up front funding to assist Canadians before they
participate in a process, to assist Canadians who have real interests
in matters of public concern before a board, commission or an
agency.
One needs to reflect on the question of who should receive such
intervenor funding. The strongest argument can be made that such
funds should be available to landowners first and foremost, to
people whose properties are impacted by a decision of government
and who have every right and responsibility on behalf of their
families to participate in a decision by this government or by any
government. They have the right to participate to make sure the
best possible decision is made and that their rights as property
owners and as Canadians are respected.
(1755)
My colleague has previously spoken about making sure we do
not fund frivolous objections. I would certainly support that. All
too often people are quick to make frivolous objections and want to
intervene in the process. I would not support funding for those
kinds of objectors, but certainly there are many legitimate concerns
that need to be raised by Canadians and we ought to fund such
individuals.
The funding needs to be up front. People need to know they will
have an opportunity to hire counsel and various other experts to
assist them in their presentations. They need to know that before
the fact and not after the fact. To me it really is not legitimate
intervenor funding and proper if it is not guaranteed to people up
front.
In supporting the bill I do so with some firsthand involvement in
the process. As the member of Parliament for London-Middlesex
and as the chair of the southwestern Ontario Liberal caucus, and as
my colleague for Oxford well knows, I have been directly involved
along with him and other members in our region in issues of this
type in southwestern Ontario.
We have had several instances of the building of interprovincial
pipelines through our region which have involved the public in
protracted disputes, the most recent one before the National Energy
Board. Landowners are laying out thousands of dollars of their own
money having to organize themselves without the help of counsel
unless they pay for such counsel. Why? It is because a company
16353
wishes to use their lands supposedly for the public good but
certainly for the good of the company. Yet the people involved
have to make sure their rights are respected.
In the latest example the people went before the National Energy
Board some months ago and won the argument they put forward.
They made a very good case. Yet the whole question of funding is
up in the air for these people and we need to address that.
Perhaps the biggest inequity is that in Ontario there are two sets
of rules where landowners are concerned. The first set of rules
comes under the provincial government. If a pipeline comes under
provincial jurisdiction such landowners are guaranteed that they
will have funding provided to them under the provincial rules.
However, if the pipeline involved comes under federal jurisdiction
there is no such guarantee. It is a very clear and obvious inequity.
In the case of some of my constituents, farmers have two
pipelines on their land barely feet apart, one coming under
provincial jurisdiction and one coming under federal jurisdiction.
When they are involved in hearings before the National Energy
Board or other agencies or commissions, they are funded when
they go to provincial hearings but are not funded when they go to
federal hearings. This seems patently unfair and certainly an
inequitable situation that our government needs to address.
I fully support my colleague from Oxford and his Bill C-339. As
a Liberal I believe it is the role of government to ensure the little
guy has full opportunity to participate on a level playing field with
big corporations in society. We have to do everything possible to
facilitate that.
It is not enough to say to people that they can appear before the
National Energy Board and argue for their rights as citizens. It is
simply not enough to do that if they do not have the means to do so,
if they do not have the wherewithal to make that presentation. That
means funding and that is why I fully support the bill. I think the
member is on the right track. The government needs to make sure
the playing field is level, that this inequity is addressed and that a
landowner, particularly in the province of Ontario, does not have to
play under two different sets of rules. The only way we can ensure
that is to have meaningful, up front, intervenor funding available to
serious Canadians, certainly landowners, who have a legitimate
concern and who want to argue that concern before whatever board,
commission or agency.
(1800)
I fully support the bill and applaud my colleague for bringing it
forward. I hope the bill will pass.
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my privilege to speak on Bill C-339 as introduced by my colleague
representing the riding of Oxford. I take this opportunity to
congratulate and thank my colleague for the great amount of work
and research he has put into Bill C-339. He truly has done a
marvellous job.
The primary objective of this legislation is to give all of those
who speak in the public interest the opportunity to be heard before
federal boards and agencies. Federal boards and agencies will make
better decisions with a higher level of public input, consultation
and participation. Bill C-339 is designed to assist those with bona
fide concerns. It is not meant to provide funding for special interest
groups. It is in the interest of each of us for the public interest to be
heard. Bill C-339 will ensure the public interest is heard.
Bill C-339 is modelled after the intervenor funding act in the
province of Ontario. The bill establishes the principle that a
proponent of a project that requires approval by a federal board or
agency should financially assist those who are intervening in the
public interest before the board. The bill allows intervenors to put
forward their perspective in a way which would allow the board to
make a decision having the best information available.
This intervenor funding act will be a significant step forward for
groups speaking in the public interest that do not have funds
available to make an adequate representation in a highly technical
age.
Before receiving funding, intervenors will need to meet the
following criteria. First, that the intervenor represents a clearly
ascertainable interest that is relevant to the issue before the review
authority and that should be represented at the hearing. Second,
that the intervenor does not have sufficient financial resources to
make a representation without funding. Third, that the intervenor
has made reasonable efforts to obtain funding from other sources.
Fourth, that the intervenor has established a record of concern
for a commitment to the interest. Fifth, that the intervenor has
made reasonable efforts to co-operate with other intervenors who
represent similar interests. Sixth, the absence of funding would
adversely affect the representation of that interest.
Seventh, the intervenor has a proposal that specifies the use to
which funding would be put, has the ability to record the
expenditure of the funding and has agreed to submit an accounting
to the panel for the expenditure and allow the panel to examine its
records to verify the accounting. In other words, the funding would
be used to help balance the playing field between those with
money, with resources, and those without. It would add an element
of accountability for government funds.
Intervenor funding is not a new concept in our country. The
province of Ontario currently has an intervenor funding project act
which has served as the model for this legislation. The Ontario act
was in turn modelled on the funding provided for the intervenors
before the Mackenzie Valley pipeline inquiry, known as the Berger
commission, in the mid-1970s.
16354
This commission, charged with the duty of investigating the
appropriateness of a pipeline through the Mackenzie Valley in the
Northwest Territories, determined that many diverse interests in
the region should be represented at the hearing. In order to
compete with the finances available to the proponents of the
pipeline, money had to be provided to the citizens groups.
Environmental groups and native representatives obtained
funding in order to present their views on how the pipeline would
affect their interests. Without funding it would have been difficult
for the intervenors to retain technical and legal experts for the
purposes of putting forward testimony on how the public would
affect environmental and native interests in the north.
The commission made clear that intervenors would have to show
that absence of funding would adversely affect the quality of their
presentations. This burden is placed on intervenors in this
legislation who must appear before a funding panel for approval.
While funding from the Berger commission was provided by the
federal government, Bill C-339 does not call on the Canadian
taxpayer to provide funding for intervenors. Instead, the proponent
of the project will provide the funding. Clearly if the proponent is
required to bear the cost of interventions they are more likely to
work with potential intervenors to find a solution before going
before the board or agency. The Ontario experience has shown the
effectiveness of this method of funding.
(1805)
This bill is important because it is in the interest of all of us that
the public interest be heard. Federal boards and agencies will be
able to make better decisions based on a higher level of public
access and consultation.
Bill C-339 is designed to assist those bona fide concerns. It is not
meant to provide funding for special interest groups. I urge all
members to support Bill C-339.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion adopted.
Consequently, the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on
Natural Resources.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed to call it 6.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
16354
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, this late show question refers to a question I put to the
Minister of Human Resources Development on Bill C-96, which
seeks to give the federal government full control over manpower
training.
My question was asked before the referendum. Now that the
results are known, I can say that bringing up that question again at
this time will give us rather clear indications as to the real desire
for change that exists in the federal government, if it agrees to
withdraw Bill C-96 or to amend it in such a way that the provinces
will have full jurisdiction over manpower training.
This is an opportunity for the federal government to proceed
with a meaningful decentralization and to delegate jurisdiction
over manpower training. We are frequently asked why both levels
of government are so stubbornly determined to keep their
involvement in that area. The answer is that one of the two
governments, the Government of Quebec, and the governments of
all other provinces for that matter, has jurisdiction over education,
and that education has a direct impact on manpower, because it
includes not only primary, high school and college level education,
but also the training of people who are coming back or want to
come back on the labour market and want to get better training.
The other level of government got involved in the area of
education by using its spending power and misusing, I would say,
the unemployment insurance fund. This year, for example, a $5
billion surplus was created in the fund, and the department wants to
use that money to meddle in manpower training.
This is a real life situation where useless duplication between
governments is very expensive for Quebecers and Canadians and
programs that are set up are not always effective. The purpose of
16355
our representations is to ask the minister if he could withdraw Bill
C-96 or find a way to give to those provinces who want it complete
control over manpower.
This is not only a matter of administrative agreements. Such
agreements were offered in the past, notably to the previous
Quebec Liberal government which, although a federalist
government, turned them down, since, without full delegation, it
would be difficult for the Quebec government to take on such a
responsibility.
(1810)
This will have an impact on several areas of activity. In taking
action, the Quebec government must be able to take into account
the impact on social assistance and on other aspects of training, for
instance, and, thus, draw up an action plan for several years to
come.
If the delegation is only good for three or five years or is not
complete, the Quebec government will not be able to ensure the
success of its actions. This is why it is hoped that the federal
government will agree to delegate the whole area of manpower to
Quebec, in compliance with the request made as a result of the
consensus reached by the unions, the Conseil du patronat, as well
as by all of the political parties in Quebec. Therefore, in these times
when the federal government is again promising us change, will it
show at last a real willingness to do so?
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member is obviously confused as to the intent and scope of
Bill C-96.
For example, clause 6 of the bill does not provide the Minister of
Human Resources Development with any new powers. These
already existed within the predecessor's departments and are
simply consolidated to provide a more efficient response to the
needs of Canadians.
Clause 20 allows the minister to enter into agreements. Again
this is nothing new, as the minister already has similar authority
under existing legislation. As the member should know, this
authority is very important to serving the needs of Canadians. For
example, under the program for older worker adjustment, the
minister signs agreements with provinces to set up the program and
with financial institutions to buy annuities on behalf of designated
unemployed older workers.
This program has been of particular importance to Quebec where
in 1994-95, the federal government spent $35.4 million,
representing 66 per cent of total expenditures nation-wide to buy
annuities on behalf of 1,255 older Quebec men and women. By the
end of 1994-95, 4,260 Quebecers were benefiting from annuities
purchased under the authority of POWA.
Of course, the federal government will continue to seek out the
co-operation of its partners in establishing flexible programs and
efficient arrangements. The government has continuously acted in
this spirit since its election in October 1993.
For example, the Canada student loans program provides grants
to women and persons with disabilities. Quebec has chosen to opt
out and runs its own student loans program. In 1994-95, Quebec
received a federal payment of over $92 million to do so.
The new Canada health and social transfer will provide block
funding to provinces for post-secondary education, health and
social assistance. The CHST will enhance provincial flexibility in
allocating federal resources according to each province's priorities.
The strategic initiatives program funds innovative projects based
on provincial priorities. We were all pleased when the minister
announced on August 29 that he had come to an agreement on this
important initiative with his Quebec colleague. As a result, an
estimated 29,000 additional Quebecers will be receiving assistance
over the next three years under the APPORT and Formation
professionelle au secondaire programs.
It is clear that the hon. member is more interested in ideology
than ideas. This bill is another step forward in the reform process
leading to a more efficient and effective government. I urge him to
support Bill C-96.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
respond to the remarks made by the Minister of Human Resources
Development in answering a question on child poverty. Today, I
would like to get a better answer than the one the minister then
gave me.
When I asked him if he would agree that cuts to the
unemployment insurance program and the transfers to provinces
would force more women and children to join the ranks of the
poorest citizens, the minister simply answered this, and I quote:
``One of the real purposes for undertaking a major modernization
of our social programs is to tackle the whole problem of poverty
faced by women and children''.
Those are fine principles. But reality is another matter
altogether. Moreover, in conclusion, the minister even had the
nerve to recall that the fight against poverty requires efforts by all
levels of government, employers, unions, social groups and
women's associations.
(1815)
That is really showing a lack of responsibility. How can we not
be totally disconcerted by a government that casually offloads its
burden onto all the others, while pretending that it has good
intentions?
16356
I want to remind the government, and especially the Minister of
Human Resources Development, to whom history will attribute the
indecent increase in the number of poor women and children in
Canada and in Quebec, that the massive cuts and the shameless
manipulation of the unemployment insurance fund have a direct
and unavoidable consequence: they increase the number of welfare
recipients.
It is not hard to understand. In Quebec alone, last July, 477,771
households were on welfare. In Quebec alone, as a direct
consequence of the current government's ineptitude, there are
almost 50,000 new social welfare recipients since it came to power.
In Quebec alone, 249,567 children count on welfare benefits for
their very survival and are suffering the consequences. That is more
than a quarter of a million children. And the minister has the gall to
tell us that women's associations must do their share. He has the
gall to tell us that social groups must also do their share.
This government must review all the cuts it wants to make. It
must look at them through its gender analysis prism it has been
boasting so much about on the international scene. The social
program reform so dear to the minister would not stand up to such
an analysis very long, and that is why his government is waiting so
long to implement it. The conclusion is obvious: the reform will
clearly penalize women and children the most.
This government must work to reduce poverty among women
and children, and not to increase it, as is currently the case.
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the federal government is very concerned with poverty among
Canadian children. Of particular concern are the six out of ten
lone-parent families headed by women who live in low-income
situations.
The best security for children is for their parents to have jobs.
Consequently, the government is working diligently to establish
conditions that create full-time employment. As a result of these
efforts, women now occupy more than half of the 505,000 new
full-time jobs that have been created across Canada since October
1993, as well as the 142,000 jobs created in Quebec.
For those who have not yet found employment we have
introduced a higher benefit rate for unemployed poor families. This
benefit rate is now providing up to $1,000 more in benefits for
these UI claims. As of July 1995 over 383,000 Canadians have
benefited from the 60 per cent benefit rate, including nearly
300,000 women. In Quebec over 110,000 claimants have received
the 60 per cent benefit rate, including over 85,000 women.
The government intends to present shortly a new program of
employment insurance, which will better help unemployed
Canadians find jobs. As the Prime Minister stated in a speech on
November 1, ``We have to change the focus because we want to
give a dependable security for the people who are raising families
on low incomes''.
Beyond these changes the Department of Human Resources
Development has launched a series of strategic initiatives with
provincial and territorial governments. In Quebec the federal
government is supporting a major initiative to help over 25,000
parents make the transition from social assistance to work. Federal
support of up to $54 million will be provided for the wage
supplementation program in the next four years.
In the member's own riding of Quebec there are several human
resources development projects under way involving
approximately 400 women, which are aimed at helping them
overcome the difficulties in order to enter the labour force.
The federal government continues to take serious and concrete
actions to improve the well-being of Canada's children. Through
reform of social programs at both the federal and provincial levels
more can be done to tackle the serious issue of child poverty.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the
motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
The House therefore stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
(The House adjourned at 6.21 p.m.)