CONTENTS
Friday, April 19, 1996
Bill C-11. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading 1695
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 1695
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 1699
Division on motion deferred 1701
Bill C-18. Motion for third reading 1701
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 1703
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 1704
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 1704
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 1705
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 1706
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 1706
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 1706
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1707
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1707
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1709
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1709
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 1709
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 1710
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 1713
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 1714
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 1715
Bill C-28. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted 1715
(Bill deemed passed at all stages.) 1715
Bill C-268. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted. 1715
Bill C-269. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 1715
Bill C-270. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted 1716
Bill C-271. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted 1716
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 1716
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 1716
Bill C-18. Consideration resumed of motio for third reading 1717
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 1725
Bill C-202. Motion for second reading 1726
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 1728
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time andreferred to a
committee. 1734
1695
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, April 19, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from April 18 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-11, an act to establish the Department of Human
Resources Development and to amend and repeal certain related
acts, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak in the House this morning in support of the
amendment by my colleague, the hon. member for Mercier, calling
for nothing short of the withdrawal of Bill C-11.
Need I remind members that the Liberal Party of Canada,
faithful to the objectives established by its guru of the last decades,
Pierre Elliott Trudeau, took office in the House of Commons in
October 1993 with the clear intention of giving government in
Canada a more centralized structure. Right from the beginning,
there was a major offensive action against the autonomy Quebec
was aiming at.
During the more than two years of the present administration, we
have seen countless examples of this thrust towards centralization,
bill after bill. Bill C-11, creating the Department of Human
Resources Development, and arising from the reform of that
department in June 1993, is yet another manifestation of the
centralist intent of the federal Liberal government.
Bill C-11 is but another step in the invasion, by the Liberal
central government, of Quebec's jurisdictions in the area of social
and economic development.
Clauses 6 and 20 of that bill are extremely revealing about the
federal government's will to limit the freedom of action of the
Quebec National Assembly. Clause 6 defines the powers, duties
and functions of the minister which now extend, and I quote:
-to include all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction relating to the
development of human resources of Canada-with the objective of enhancing
employment.
The minister is given considerable powers and will be free to act
without the approval of the provinces, I repeat, without the
approval of the provinces.
In fact, this bill contains no provision on provincial jurisdiction,
let alone on honouring this jurisdiction; on the contrary, it denies
Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction over manpower training and
development.
Consensus has just been established once again, with a
unanimous statement at the latest summit held in Quebec, a
consensus of all parties: employers, unions, as well as the social
and political communities. But they refuse to recognize it and thus
fail to respect Quebec's dominion in an area of exclusive provincial
jurisdiction, that is, manpower training and development.
Clause 20 lists the organizations with which the department may
enter into agreements. It reads as follows:
20. For the purpose of facilitating the formulation, co-ordination and
implementation of any program or policy-the minister may enter into
agreements with a province-, agencies of provinces, financial institutions and
such other persons or bodies as the minister considers appropriate.
So the minister may put anyone he wants in charge of managing
his department's policies and programs without having to justify
himself in the House or worrying about the Quebec government's
directives. And what are those directives? Nothing very
complicated: the Government of Quebec has its own legislation, an
act relating to the executive council of the Government of Quebec.
And what does that mean? Allow me to review it for the Liberal
government.
Mr. Speaker, I believe I am waking up two or three hon.
members. They are awake now, fine.
The legislation on the executive council provides that only the
government, through its intergovernmental affairs, can enter into
agreements, make arrangements or establish programs on behalf of
all agencies, municipalities, school boards and parapublic
agencies.
What is the Liberal government doing systematically in its
legislation? It ignores the executive council act and the exclusive
1696
responsibility of the Government of Quebec for agreements outside
of Quebec. Now, not only does the Liberal government
systematically treat Quebec lightly, but it does so explicitly in all
its bills in a pernicious and vicious way and with total disregard for
provincial jurisdictions.
The minister will have the power to enter into agreements with
all local agencies and municipalities. And we all know there is a
clear consensus among Quebec municipalities regarding a regional
development strategy with the federal government and its secretary
of state and bypassing the Quebec government. According to
Quebec employment minister, Mrs. Louise Harel, this bill is the
antithesis of the Quebec consensus on manpower policy, the
antithesis of the single window concept.
This bill prevents Quebec from implementing its own integrated
social policy. On the other hand, the federal government is giving
itself the legal basis to encroach on provincial jurisdictions
whenever it feels like it, for example in the areas of childcare and
manpower.
(1010)
As the official opposition critic for heritage and cultural
industries, I cannot help but relate this bill to Bill C-53 establishing
the Heritage and Cultural Industry Department. Both are extremely
centralizing.
In the area of communications, for instance, the action of federal
government is unequivocal. The successive rulings of the Supreme
Court of Canada on broadcasting in 1931, on cable television in
1977 and on telecommunications in 1994 have given exclusive
jurisdiction to Ottawa in those areas and thus have deprived
Quebec of any prerogative in the area of communications.
Here are a few examples of the federal government's tendency to
centralize everything in this area. On February 27, 1992, with Bill
C-62, the legislation on telecommunications, Ottawa announced its
intention to pass new legislation in order to put in place a consistent
policy for the entire country overseen by a single regulatory body.
In this, however, it totally ignored Quebec's identity and legitimate
aspirations of wide reaching autonomy because of its distinct
nature.
Another example of centralizing policy. On October 31, 1994,
the Minister of Canadian Heritage said that the information
highway should be controlled by the federal government, meet
national objectives and promote Canadian culture. Quebec should
be able to control the socio-economic and cultural issues relating to
the information highway since the federal government did not
share its strategy for the French content of the information
highway.
In setting up her cabinet on June 25, 1993, and I am talking about
the Conservatives here, Prime Minister Kim Campbell created the
Department of Canadian Heritage in order to promote a Canadian
cultural identity based on Canada's foremost characteristics: its
bilingualism and its multiculturalism.
The federal government decided to combine under the authority
of the Department of Canadian Heritage all areas, according to Bill
C-53, which established the department, relating to Canada's
identity, values, cultural development and heritage, thereby
denying Quebec's true cultural identity. This department's mandate
made no provision for the difference in Quebec's culture and so, as
usual, Ottawa denied Quebec's cultural reality by melding it with
Canada's cultural identity based on bilingualism and
multiculturalism.
In fact, all legislation concerning the major policies of the
Liberal Party of Canada is extremely centralizing and continues to
be expressed bill after bill. The Canadian federal system is a
centralized political structure, and the Liberal Party is its master
builder.
Bill C-11, which establishes the Department of Human
Resources Development, is nothing more than the logical
conclusion of a long series of legislative measures aimed at
denying the existence of Quebec and its ability to establish a
legislative and institutional framework to suit its needs, its
uniqueness and its aspirations.
Bill C-76, legislation implementing certain provisions of the
budget of February 1995, is another example of the Liberal
government's efforts to negate the state of Quebec. I would remind
you that, under this legislation, the Minister of Human Resources
Development is using savings realized from the reform of
unemployment insurance to set up a human resource investment
fund. This fund will be used for manpower training, among other
things, and will therefore give the central government massive
discretionary and centralizing powers over an area that is under
Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction-education-thereby completely
disregarding Quebec's policies in the area.
(1015)
Let us look at other examples. Interprovincial trade is another
area in which the federal government likes to impose its
centralizing vision. Bill C-88 shows the federal government's
determination to act as judge and jury in interprovincial trade and
to give itself, through this bill, a power of enforcement through
orders it issues. Thus, it can extend the application of any federal
legislation to the provinces, as stated in clause 9(1)(c), in other
words, to exert control over its partners by declaring itself in all
disputes the sole judge and jury able to decide.
This unitary state attitude of a centralizing federal system is in
contradiction with provincial identities and, as such, impedes the
development of Quebec. This attitude is also reflected in Bill C-46
establishing the Department of Industry. Its clause 8 states
specifically that the Minister of Industry is responsible for regional
economic development in Ontario and Quebec.
This bill only goes to show that there is overlap with respect to
regional economic development by confirming the federal industry
1697
department's right to interfere in an area of jurisdiction over which
Quebec has been demanding control for a long time.
Bill C-91 to continue the Federal Business Development Bank
under the name Business Development Bank of Canada is another
example of centralizing federal legislation. Clauses 20 and 21 of
this bill are totally unacceptable to Quebec. Clause 20 provides that
the Business Development Bank ``may enter into agreements with,
and act as agent for, any department or agency of the government
of Canada or a province, for the provision of services or programs
on their behalf''.
This is another example of how, bill after bill, the government is
invading provincial areas of jurisdiction, and going as far as
stipulating in a piece of legislation how to do it, completely
ignoring the legislation on Quebec's executive council where it is
said that the Quebec government alone may enter into agreements
and arrangements with governments outside Quebec on behalf of
its own agencies, institutions, and municipalities.
However, the federal government keeps turning a deaf ear,
refusing to abide by the laws of Quebec. Bill after bill, it keeps on
centralizing without any constitutional consultation. It claims it is
decentralizing, it claims it is willing to talk to everybody, but
quietly and slyly, one bill at a time, it is giving itself all the tools to
centralize.
Moreover, government members congratulate themselves for
being open, flexible, ready to talk to anyone. But talks will not go
very far, since with every new bill they become judge and jury, and
can impose their own policies and legislation.
Under this clause the Liberal federal government pursues its
strategy of centralization, a political strategy the objective of which
is, I remind you, to substantially restrict the Quebec government's
ability to act in the area of economic development, ultimately
preventing it from achieving political autonomy.
The demagogic approach developed by the present Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, who claims that Canada is the most
decentralized country in the world, is an insult to intelligence and
reflects a bad faith which is a major impediment to finding a
solution regarding Quebec's place in North America.
(1020 )
In spite of the incessant pleas of the Quebec government to
develop its own economic and social policies, the Liberal Party of
Canada always said no and used every available legislative means
to restrict the decision making power of Quebec National
Assembly.
The new Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs may very well
claim that the Canadian federation is one of the most decentralized,
but we are of the opinion that it is one of the most centralized in the
world. This is why 2,308,266 Quebecers voted for sovereignty on
October 30.
[English]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the
following motion:
That the vote previously scheduled to take place on Monday, April 22 be
further deferred until Tuesday, April 23 at 5.30 p.m.
(Motion agreed to.)
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
altogether sad and happy to speak to this bill. I am happy, because I
hope my speech will help to sink it into oblivion, and sad because it
shows once again that the federal government has no clue how to
interpret the results of the October 30 referendum.
Bill C-96, which became Bill C-11, gives the Department of
Human Resources Development new powers that it did not have
previously. It was already inappropriate before the referendum and
it is all the more so now. However it is almost the exact opposite of
what was said in the last throne speech.
Indeed, in the speech from the throne, the government was
telling us very humbly: We intend to withdraw from the provinces'
jurisdictions. Five or six areas were mentioned, forestry, recreation
and manpower, to name but a few. We know what was behind the
government's withdrawal in matters of manpower. It was probably
a trick to save time.
Despite this announcement in the speech from the throne, we
were also told, among other things, that the federal government had
no intention of interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction
without the consent of a majority of the provinces. Of course,
Quebecers are perfectly aware, in this context, that it will be
relatively easy for the federal government to get the consent of a
majority of the provinces and that, most of the time, Quebec will
lose out as a result of this throne speech promise.
My colleague, the member for Richmond-Wolfe, has explained
very capably how the federal government has intruded upon
provincial jurisdictions over the last few months. He described how
this bill is another example of federal intrusion in Quebec's
jurisdiction.
I think it is impossible to improve this bill. That is why the
member for Mercier asked that it be brought back to its starting
point or at least that it be sent to the Standing Committee on
Human Resources Development so that the committee can
determine if anything can be done with it.
1698
(1025)
I agree that we should not increase the powers of the Department
of Human Resources Development because, in the past, it has
abused its powers. A case in point is unemployment insurance
reform.
In the throne speech, we were also told that the government
would ensure the viability of social programs. So we have two
commitments related to the subject at hand: first, the government
will withdraw from the provincial areas of jurisdiction and they
will not intrude on any others; second, it has committed to ensuring
the viability of social programs.
Then, what did the government announce in the throne speech?
Among other things, a $7 billion cut in transfers to provinces. What
will the impact of such a measure be? It will be remembered that
the Canada health and social transfer covers health care, income
security and post-secondary education. It is clear that by passing
the deficit on to the provinces, the federal government will force
them to make drastic and difficult decisions that will not
necessarily be in the best interests of the population.
I would like, however, to highlight the impact of those measures
on post-secondary education, mainly at the university level. If
provinces receive less for universities, the tuition fees will almost
certainly go up.
What will happen then? We have to try to find some kind of
common thread in all this. If tuition fees increase, young people, in
order to make ends meet, will try to get as many hours of paid work
as possible.
We seem to be forgetting about the society in which young
people live. We live in a consumer society. We cannot ask young
teenagers and young adults to live as if they were cloistered, as
recluses, excluded from all economic activity. A recent study
showed that, in Quebec alone, teenagers spend $1 billion on
consumer goods.
Some paternalistic people might say that if they are short of
money they should refrain from spending. However, this would be
hypocritical because, really, we have chosen a consumer society as
our economic model. It means that the money that young people
are spending fuels the economy. Therefore we cannot-and it
would be stupid to do so-tell young people: ``If you do not have
any money, just do not consume''.
The increase in tuition fees means that young people will
increasingly be looking for work. And if they do work more, we
can forecast the consequences. I am a former school principal and I
know what it means for young people to work more than 15 hours a
week on top of their regular school work, which is their first
priority. Already, in the last year of high school, where there are
virtually no fees, almost half the students work, have paid
employment to be able to fit into our consumer society and to
purchase what they see advertised on TV and everywhere in the
media.
(1030)
So, young people will work more, will have a little less time to
spend on their studies, and we are entitled to think that their grades
will suffer and that some of them will not pass. Because they have
been unable to spend as much time as they should on their studies,
college and university students will have to repeat some courses. In
some cases, it will no doubt be more dramatic. They will probably
have to also repeat a whole year, whether in high school, college or
university.
If we keep in mind that it costs about $10,000 to live while
attending university, we realize how an increase in tuition fees is a
short-sighted decision. For the federal government to reduce
transfers to the provinces when this will result in an increase in
tuition fees shows a lack of foresight. Eventually, we will have to
pay a price for such measures, in terms of social costs.
Not only will students be sometimes put in situations where they
will fail some courses or have to repeat them, but we can also
imagine that the need to work more hours will lead to some of them
dropping out. Young people who can no longer invest enough time
and energy in their studies will lose interest at some point. They
will realize they are in over their head will drop out of school.
Once again, we have an example of the hypocrisy of the society
we live in. There are campaigns against dropping out, but at the
same time, young people are put in a situation where they are
obliged to reduce the time they spend on their studies. So, some
have to drop out of the school system. To a large extent, it is bad
political decisions that are leading systematically to dropping out
and, more often than not, even though education comes under
provincial jurisdiction, the problem is created at the federal level
and transferred to the provincial level, and people are left with the
impression that it is the provinces that are making bad decisions.
The budget speech was pernicious, through the $7 billion in cuts
to transfers to the provinces, but as if that were not enough, the
federal government went further by saying, in a very hypocritical
way: ``We will reform unemployment insurance''. It is not
reforming unemployment insurance, it is destroying a system that
workers and businesses have paid for from their own pockets, since
the federal government no longer contributes in any way to the
unemployment insurance fund. It has infiltrated a system put in
place by employers and employees and is now busy wreaking
havoc with it.
I want to address three aspects of this government's destructive
behaviour. If this reform ever sees the light of day despite all the
demonstrations and protests in the maritimes, Quebec and else-
1699
where, the government may be persuaded to soften the blow by
these demonstrations, which cannot be anything but emotional
because people feel affected in their daily lives, knowing the
impact this reform will have on their living conditions, their
children and so on. It is therefore only normal for them to
demonstrate vigorously against this bill.
(1035)
I wish to draw your attention to two measures in particular
provided for in this bill. These two measures revolve around the
same figure, $900 million. As members may recall, the
government told us in the throne speech about its intention to
ensure the viability of social programs. As far as I know, a country
that creates social programs does not necessarily do so for the
wealthy. Who needs social programs? The most vulnerable in our
society, those in a precarious situation. But it is precisely these
vulnerable people the government is targeting.
The government tells us it will take $900 million away from
seasonal employees, part time workers and, of course, the students
I referred to earlier. It is trying to sell them the illusion that perhaps
one day, if the context is just right, they may qualify for
unemployment insurance benefits. No one really believes this
given how hard it is to receive benefits and how high the eligibility
thresholds have been raised. Not many people believe those
workers in a precarious situation will ever qualify for benefits.
Seasonal workers are being penalized. My colleagues on the
human resources development committee have condemned this
reform on numerous occasions, almost singlehandedly if I may say
so, because of a lack of support from members who should have
been more concerned about the rights of their constituents, be they
from the NDP or the Reform Party-although it would be
somewhat more surprising coming from that side. At any rate, I am
convinced that, in the ridings represented by members of the
Reform Party, there are workers whose jobs are not secure and who
will be hurt by this bill.
Unfortunately, only Bloc Quebecois members were courageous,
strong and proud enough to stand up for the disadvantaged and for
those whose work situation is precarious.
I would like to say a few more words about students, as they are
always on my mind because I was a school principal in a previous
life. Students will be particularly hard hit by this reform. Naturally,
the government assures us that, in the particular case of students,
contributions made by those who did not earn $2,000 will be
refunded. But we know that only in 25 per cent or so of the cases
will contributions actually be refunded, because nearly 75 per cent
of students will earn more than $2,000. Just try to live on less than
$2,000 a year while attending university. It is obvious that the
$2,000 limit is grossly underestimated and does not reflect the
financial needs of students.
As a result, businesses will see their payroll taxes increase. Last
week, I treated myself to a meeting of the human resources
development committee, where witnesses from Manitoba were
saying exactly the same thing as what employers from my riding
had told me, namely that raising payroll taxes on small
business-the people giving evidence were from the restaurant
industry, which, as we know, is particularly vulnerable to
competition-will have immediate and dramatic consequences.
Employers required to pay higher unemployment insurance
payroll taxes will necessarily be driven to consider reducing the
work time they used to distribute among their part time employees.
(1040)
Consequently, employees will undoubtedly be subjected to more
pressure, they will have to give a higher performance to do the
same work in fewer paid hours. So, when the government claims
that the unemployment insurance reform will create part time jobs,
it is indulging in wishful thinking, because it will rather do the
opposite.
If the Minister of Human Resources Development really listened
to what employers have to say on the matter, he would realize that
his dreams do not correspond to reality. The reform will decrease
the number of jobs, part time jobs in particular, and workers will be
overburdened.
I will conclude now, because I realize that my time is running
out. In my opinion, not only did the government wickedly impose a
$900 million cut on the most insecure and poorest workers, but it is
also taking $900 million from the poor to distribute to the rich.
This is really what the government is doing when it says:
``People will stop contributing for the part of their salary exceeding
$39,000''. Previously, the maximum insurable earnings was
$42,500, so lowering it to $39,000 will result in savings of $900
million. This amount equals the one we mentioned before. In other
words, the government takes from the poor to give to the rich. This
bill is totally unfair, and we should not give more powers to a
government which implements such a measure.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my speech today-
The Deputy Speaker: Speeches cannot exceed a maximum of
ten minutes and there are no questions or comments.
Mrs. Tremblay: My speech today deals with third reading of
Bill C-11, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources
Development and to amend and repeal certain related acts, and with
the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Mercier to
withdraw this legislation.
1700
For the benefit of our listeners, let me point out that this bill was
debated at second reading during the first session of this 35th
Parliament. We resume the debate where we left it before the Prime
Minister decided to prorogue Parliament, last January.
First, a general comment must be made regarding this
legislation. The government wants to change its administration and
reduce its size and costs. This in itself is a laudable goal.
Consequently, it merges, eliminates or creates new departments,
which means that legislation is required to legalize the situation of
several ministers and departments. Indeed, several ministers were
sworn in under the former names of their department, not the new
ones.
I did an intellectual exercise which was meant to be objective,
even though objectivity is always subjective. I examined certain
documents dealing with this bill, I reread several speeches made in
this House at second reading, when the bill was known as Bill
C-96, and I took a look at a few letters and memos released by
colleagues, organizations and ministers.
What I noticed was a great deal of consistency. With his bill, the
minister has managed, as have many ministers in this government,
to unite everyone against him. Let us take a closer look at what
some have said or written about this legislation.
(1045)
First and foremost, Quebec's employment minister who, on
October 4, 1995, issued a communique indicating that the
Government of Quebec was associating itself ``with its labour
market partners to oppose the designs of Ottawa on the issue of
manpower''. The minister was echoing the position taken by the
board of directors of the Société québécoise de développement de
la main-d'oeuvre, which includes major employer associations and
unions, as well as representatives of the co-operative, community
and academic world. That same morning, the corporation had
issued a statement indicating its unanimous rejection of this piece
of legislation. At that time, Mrs. Harel, the minister, wrote: ``This
bill is the very opposite of the consensus on manpower in Quebec,
the opposite of the single window principle. This proves that
Ottawa is committed to continuing and even increasing its costly
duplication and overlap in the area of manpower in Quebec''.
The next day, October 5, 1995, the Canadian Institute of Adult
Education also issued a press release, entitled: ``Bill C-96: Minister
Axworthy's Blueprint for Society or How to Manage Without the
Provinces''. Today, six months later, the institute could issue the
same release except for two things: the bill has changed numbers
and is now called Bill C-11, and the minister responsible now is the
one who was then the transport minister, before the Prime Minister
did a major cabinet shuffle last January.
Here are a few excerpts from this press release which is still
relevant today: ``This bill seriously undermines the equity principle
governing the social security system in Canada and denies the
exclusive jurisdiction of provinces over manpower training and
development. With this bill, the federal government has
demonstrated a blatant lack of respect for the aspirations of the
provinces.-Clauses 6, 20 and 21 leave no doubt as to the
centralizing designs of the federal government''.
Two days later, on October 7, 1995, Henri Massé, then secretary
general of the FTQ, a labour confederation representing nearly half
a million workers in Quebec, signed a press release describing the
dangers of federalism and urging the government to refrain from
intruding into the field of manpower training in Quebec. The FTQ
cautioned the federal government about any attempt to intervene in
areas of provincial jurisdiction and to set up parallel structures.
He went on to say: ``There is a strong consensus favouring
Quebec's becoming solely responsible for policies on manpower
adjustment and occupational training within its borders.-The
Conseil du patronat itself agrees with the unions on this.-Even
Robert Bourassa's Liberal government opposed a similar move by
Ottawa in 1991''.
Mr. Massé then pointed out that the bill will confer extensive
powers to the minister who could always bypass the provinces.
Finally, Mr. Massé concluded that: ``This bill leaves the door wide
open for privatization and contracting-out of certain programs,
including the unemployment insurance plan''.
On November 28, the very same day that Bill C-96 was to be
voted on in this House, the Minister of State for Joint Action,
Minister of Employment and Minister of Immigration and Cultural
Communities in the Parizeau government sent out yet another press
release saying, and I quote: ``Bill C-96-now Bill C-11-is a fraud
and it confirms the federal government's intentions to
systematically bypass Quebec's jurisdiction and institutions to
maintain, and even increase, duplication regarding manpower
related measures in our province, under the guise of
decentralization''.
(1050)
It goes on to say: ``Bill C-96 amounts to a flat rejection of the
unanimous Quebec consensus to the effect that the federal
government must completely withdraw from the manpower sector
and give related budgets back to the province.- Ottawa's tactic
was formally condemned by all labour market partners. Ottawa has
confirmed it intends to pursue its centralist manpower policy and
ignore the specific needs of the Quebec labour market, thus
dismissing the consensus in Quebec on manpower issues which
stresses the need to fight unemployment effectively by allowing for
the differences in the various labour markets across Quebec and
1701
promoting the involvement of the socio-economic players in every
region and community''.
So, based on these brief reactions and comments and since I do
not have much time, I have come to the conclusion that, with this
bill, the federal government is far from withdrawing from the
manpower sector. On the contrary, it is getting more involved. And
what worries me is that the minister in inconspicuously using this
bill to give himself even greater powers at the expense of the
provinces.
The basic points of the bill are reflected in certain clauses. The
powers, duties and functions of the minister are defined in clause 6,
which stipulates:
6. The powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend to and include all
matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction relating to the development of the
human resources of Canada not by law assigned to another Minister, department,
board or agency of the Government of Canada, and are to be exercised with the
objective of enhancing employment, encouraging equality and promoting social
security.
Under legislation now in force, the powers of the minister deal
with the creation, implementation and organization of human
resources in Canada, placement services, unemployment insurance
and immigration.
Since these parameters have been left out of the bill now before
us, the phrase ``all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction''
is most disquieting.
Certain clauses give the minister the authority to entrust
whomever he wants with the management of his department's
policies and programs without having to discuss this with anybody,
including Parliament.
To conclude, this bill is a sinister manoeuver but the official
opposition has not been taken in. With this bill, Ottawa wants to
gain full control over the labour market policy and human
resources development in Quebec. We say no to this bill, which is
one more reason for Quebec to separate.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amendment. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45, a recorded
division stands deferred until Monday, April 22, at the ordinary
time of the adjournment.
Pursuant to the agreement reached earlier today, a recorded
division is deferred until Tuesday, at the end of the period provided
for the consideration of government orders.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (for the Minister of Health) moved that Bill
C-18, an act to establish the Department of Health and to amend
and repeal certain acts, be read the third time and passed.
(1055)
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak today in
support of Bill C-18.
Health is one of the most fundamental areas of government
activity in our time. It is as much a basis of our economic success
as it is a basis for our social strength.
Canadians have come to see Canada's approach to health issues
as a valued example of the country's greatness. This bill will put
the legal framework in place for us to keep moving forward as a
modern department in a time of challenge.
You will forgive me if I read like this. I guess I have reached the
age where health is very important to me. I do not mean to make
light of this but my arms are no longer long enough to read my
notes. My pride nonetheless has not been just a product of vanity,
but it is a product of Canada's record of accomplishment and
achievement in the broad health domain.
We have a health system that some of my colleagues opposite
will recognize as the envy of the world. Yet we are at a time when
people recognize the strains on the system and they are worried
about the capacity of governments to meet the challenges these
strains produce. Nonetheless what we have accomplished in this
field shows the strength of the Canadian federation to address
challenges. It shows the Constitution of Canada allows all
governments to do what is right for the people of this land.
I will spend a few minutes reflecting on the leadership role the
Government of Canada has played in the development and
evolution of health and health issues. After all it, is the actions of
the federal government, together with the provincial and territorial
governments, that have built the system. Each has had a role to play
that has been tested as constitutionally sound, and each still has
such a role.
1702
Speculating on what the Fathers of Confederation would have
done if they could have looked into the future, it is kind of a
parlour game currently in Ottawa. Would the Fathers of
Confederation have drafted a constitution different from the one
we currently have if they could have imagined today's health
system and its costs?
The Fathers of Confederation assigned responsibilities as best
they could and set out some principles to guide them. Almost from
the time the constitutional ink was dry governments, courts and
citizens have been interpreting those responsibilities based on
contemporary context, and that is the genius of our Constitution. It
is not simple a document, words on paper, or a historical curiosity
from an another era. It is a living part of the fabric of Canadian
society.
During the course of this debate some hon. members have cited
various powers over health that our Constitution has assigned to
provincial legislatures. They point to these and then claim the
government has no right to work toward better health for
Canadians. Can one imagine the absurdity of such a claim that the
government has no right to take a leadership role? Can one expect
an abandonment of responsibility? Obviously I disagree, as I think
many of my colleagues on this of the House would.
The Constitution does not assign health as a complete and
distinct subject to either the provinces or to the Parliament of
Canada. It is much broader and farseeing.
It is certainly correct to note, though, there are provincial powers
that relate to health. This is beyond debate. Sections 92(7), 92(13)
and 92(16) of the Constitution deal mostly with hospitals,
properties, civil rights and local matters. Section 92(2), which
deals with local taxation and spending, would have extensions also
for health implications.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary can
continue his intervention after question period.
_____________________________________________
1702
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
riding of Huron-Bruce abounds with an overwhelming amount of
tourism features. Huron-Bruce follows the shores of Lake Huron,
the land of sights and sounds that captivate the enthusiasm of
visitors of all ages. Lakeside communities bring the Huron
shoreline to life. Sauble Beach, Port Elgin, Southampton,
Kincardine, Goderich and Grand Bend all feature excellent
marinas, shopping, dining, festivals, theatres and playhouses,
accommodation and camping. Inland communities such as Blyth
offer the renowned Blyth Festival, agricultural heritage and a
picturesque village nestled in the quiet stretches of endless
farmland.
(1100)
Huron-Bruce is a patchwork quilt of rural Canadian towns,
farm landscapes, parks and Lake Huron shoreline. My riding is
hometown proud and I extend to my colleagues, their families and
friends an invitation to visit Huron-Bruce and experience the
charm, culture and the boundless possibilities of a vacation
destination.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources has announced the
elimination of the $7.5 million grant that was paid annually to the
tokamak project at the Canadian centre for magnetic fusion located
in Varennes.
By killing this research project on a new form of clean energy
that creates jobs, the minister sacrifices 20 years of development
work in the area of fusion, $70 million in infrastructure and about
100 specialized jobs.
The minister had the audacity to say in this House that about 25
per cent of her department's investments in research and
development were in Quebec. However, the union of professional
scientists at the Institut de recherche en énergie du Québec tells us
that, at the present time, the federal Department of Natural
Resources and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited spend only 8 per
cent of their energy research and development budget in Quebec.
With the elimination of the tokamak project, this would fall to 6 per
cent.
Once again Quebec is the big loser as a result of cuts made
without any consideration for the future.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today is my first opportunity for a private member's
statement after a terrible tragedy struck the city of Vernon, B.C.
where my constituency office is located.
On Easter weekend the Gakhal family was gathering for what
was to have been a joyful occasion as one of their six children was
getting married. Instead, the estranged husband of one daughter
arrived at the home of his in-laws and proceeded to kill nine of his
former relatives before he returned to his motel room and took his
own life.
1703
This Canadian family was such a long term part of the
community that most other Vernon families knew one or more
members of the Gakhal family. Their children were friends with
children of my office staff.
As the member for Okanagan-Shuswap, I want to express both
my personal sorrow and the appreciation of the people of Vernon
and the Gakhal family for the moment of silence observed on April
15 by this House as requested by the member for Vancouver South.
The funeral Saturday with all those open caskets was one of the
saddest days in my life and in the history of Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
``the need to unite Canadians is at the heart of the CBC's mandate''
according to Mr. Perrin Beatty, president-
An hon. member: Order.
The Deputy Speaker: As the hon. member knows, we have
certain restrictions in terms of our dress code.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): I will put my jacket back on,
Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that will not be enough.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on March 30 I had the honour of attending the official
opening of the Eastern Kings Memorial Community Health Centre
in my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants.
This hospital has worked hard to ensure that its doors remained
open during the province's health care reform exercise. Due to the
tenacity and the strong will of the people of Wolfville and the
surrounding area, this centre will stay open. In fact, it has become
the first community health centre to open under Nova Scotia's
reformed health system. It will continue to deliver first class
primary health care to the people of Eastern Kings county.
I would like all members of Parliament to join me in
congratulating all of the volunteers and the staff who have worked
so hard to make this happen. They have truly made their
community a better place.
* * *
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as the 1996 summer Olympics are quickly approaching I would
like to congratulate Nancy Sweetnam of Lindsay, Ontario in
qualifying for the games in Atlanta.
Nancy recently qualified for the 400 individual medley event in
swimming at the time trials in Montreal. She had an excellent year
at the World Cup swim meets in Europe where she grabbed four
gold medals and a silver. This will mark the second time she has
been to the Olympics as she competed in the 1992 Barcelona
summer games. Due to her recent success at the World Cup swim
meets, it appears Nancy is peaking at the right time, heading into
the Olympics.
(1105)
Congratulations and good luck, Nancy. The people of
Victoria-Haliburton and the rest of Canada wish you all the best
in your quest for gold.
* * *
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want
to tell the House about a great youth project in my riding of St.
Catharines. It is a Youth Services Canada project sponsored by the
Niagara Regional Police Service.
Fifteen young people worked with the Niagara police to promote
community safety and crime prevention while learning work
related skills. These young people worked in classroom and
community settings. They visited malls, schools and seniors'
homes to promote community safety with projects like
Neighbourhood Watch, Lock It or Lose it and Combat Auto Theft.
They also improved their life and work skills through education
in first aid, problem solving, team building, budgeting, writing
résumés, job interviews and more.
The young people say they have gained greater self-esteem,
self-confidence, people skills and an opportunity to succeed. This
project is a great example of government, police and young
Canadians working together to make their communities better and
giving youth vital skills for the future.
Congratulations to Chief Waddell, project co-ordinator
Constable Tim Whittle, everyone at the Niagara Regional Police
Service and the 15 young people on a job well done.
* * *
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this week we are celebrating National Soil Conservation
Week. Healthy soil is an essential component of a healthy
environment and is a foundation on which sustainable agriculture is
built.
The Soil Conservation Council of Canada was formed 10 years
ago to promote the preservation and enrichment of Canada's soil
and water resources for the benefit of present and future
generations. Half of its current board members are farmers,
including newly elected president, Gerry Willerth of Indian Head,
Saskatche-
1704
wan. They form a coalition of producer driven, soil and water
conservation organizations in each province with all stakeholders
contributing funding toward public education, research and
program evaluation.
The Government of Canada, through Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada, conducts research and actively supports initiatives for soil
conservation. Much progress has been made in halting and
reversing soil degradation.
National Soil Conservation Week helps to focus attention on this
important issue which affects us all.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there is a
seething rage developing in the province of British Columbia as
once again British Columbians feel that the Government of Canada
is ignoring their concerns.
Today representatives of over 500,000 people living in coastal
communities say that the Mifflin plan fails to address the serious
concerns of the west coast fishery.
I ask particularly the parliamentary secretary to the minister of
fisheries and Liberal members from British Columbia to stand up
for the concerns of British Columbians and not be a sop of the
government in British Columbia. Your job here is to represent B.C.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
1996 marks the 50th anniversary of the Fédération des caisses
populaires de l'Ontario. Over the years, the francophone
community of Ontario has built its own network of credit unions.
Today, the federation has 42 branches and 65 outlets to serve its
members. Some 200,000 Franco-Ontarians have joined the
co-operative movement and the network as a whole administers
total assets of $1.6 billion.
The members of the caisse populaires have obviously created a
powerful development tool that reflects their dreams and
aspirations. Throughout the year, several cultural, co-operative and
community activities organized in partnership with local
organizations will mark the federation's 50th anniversary. This is a
fine example of the vitality of Ontario's many francophone
communities.
[English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance recently stated in the House that
the Reform budget ``had reductions in transfer payments to the
provinces that made ours look like a peanut hill. They were
enormous''. This statement is false.
The Reform Party had proposed a cut of $3.5 billion in
provincial transfers for health, welfare and higher education and $3
billion in equalization payments. The Liberal budget projects a cut
of $7 billion on social program transfers. The Liberal budget
exceeds the Reform cuts by $500 million.
(1110)
I ask the minister: where is the peanut hill? Why these
misrepresentations? Is it lack of information, carelessness or a
deliberate political tactic?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the need to
unite Canadians is at the heart pf the CBC's mandate. The president
of the CBC, Perrin Beatty, said so himself.
The sole mandate of the CBC is to reflect as faithfully as
possible the reality of Canada and Quebec. The CBC acts as a
witness who sees, hears and reports on what is happening.
Turning this witness into one that manipulates reality to bring
communities closer together is a serious departure from the
mandate of the CBC and has reduced this institution to a
propaganda tool serving a single ideology, namely Canadian unity.
The Bloc Quebecois objects to such a change in mandate and
would like the president and chief executive officer of the CBC to
either clarify his remarks or take them back. The CBC is made up
of two independent networks, each responding to the needs of its
audience. It is unacceptable for their mandate to be subject to the
dictates of the ruling party.
* * *
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I wish to express our
profound indignation about and strong disapproval of the massacre
at Qana, in southern Lebanon, in which some 100 civilians were
killed and another 100 wounded.
1705
This slaughter of civilians in a refugee camp under UN
protection, which resulted from the Israeli army's actions, is more
massive than the one that resulted from the February 1994 attack
on the Sarajevo market.
Israel must immediately stop the bloodshed, which seriously
sullies its honour and undermines the credibility of its cause.
There was another exchange of fire last night between Israel and
Hezbollah. The toll of the Israeli operation is reported to have
reached more than 151 dead, most of them civilians, and close to
300 wounded. This massacre must end. We urge both sides to
respond to the international community's call for an immediate
ceasefire.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, since
February, western Canadians have been given the opportunity to fly
at bargain basement prices. While West Jet fights the competition
in the skies, this Liberal government has launched an attack from
the ground.
On March 22 the fledgling West Jet was forced, at great expense,
to comply to a so-called Transport Canada safety rule written years
ago. All airlines operating in western Canada were forced to give
safety instructions in both languages.
Three air carriers asked for one-year extensions. Transport
Canada refused. ``If you do not have flight attendants with French
language capabilities, hire them or get sound equipment,'' came
the edict.
If the urgency was all about safety, why was it not important
enough to be implemented when it was first drafted six years ago?
Did the flying public request the second language rule? No, it came
from the police of official languages here in Ottawa.
A pilot from Transport Canada informed me this week the edict
had nothing to do with safety.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, over 600 federalist residents of the Outaouais met last
night in the small town of Low to reiterate their deep attachment to
Quebec and Canada.
Many such rallies have been held across Canada since the
October 30 referendum. Citizens from all over the country are
mobilizing to help resolve the constitutional crisis fuelled by
Quebec separatists.
All these groups are sending a clear message. They want a united
Canada and fervently hope that Quebec will remain part of it.
I commend the initiative taken by all these people seeking
peaceful, unifying solutions and I can assure them that my
government will do all it can to meet their legitimate expectations.
* * *
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
take this opportunity to point out that this is Quebec week for retail
trade.
The retail industry is a key player in Quebec's economic
development. It is currently estimated that over 500,000 Quebecers
work in that very aggressive and competitive sector.
(1115)
Annual sales in the wholesale and retail sector exceed $50
billion, or slightly more than 12 per cent of Quebec's GDP.
Over the last few days, various activities and events took place
throughout the province to celebrate the week for retail trade. I join
promoters, participants and customers in congratulating
entrepreneurs who constantly strive to provide quality products to
enhance the well-being of consumers.
* * *
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
on March 30, the Minister of Health announced that a study would
be conducted on raw milk cheese to see if these products should be
banned. The decision is based on the fact that bacteria caused the
death of a Swiss citizen 60 years ago.
Milk producers are going through tough times. They just lost
their federal subsidies and, in addition to that, they must fight with
the Americans over import tariffs.
What the Liberals are proposing will make the transition even
harder, particularly in Quebec, the principal homeland of cheese.
This measure makes no sense at all. What is next? Will the
minister propose that cheese be registered, just like firearms?
>
1706
1706
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Despite the latest ultimatum given the Department of National
Defence Monday by counsel for the Somalia inquiry, frustrated at
having to beg for documents that never appear, we learn this
morning that a number of essential documents have still not been
produced, including the registers for the first and third commandos.
How does the minister explain the fact that, despite the 12 boxes
that arrived five minutes before the deadline, key registers have
still not been supplied at the request of the inquiry?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, two issues have
to be addressed on the documentation question and one on the
public affairs issue.
A counsel for the commission this morning said that they were
satisfied that the department had produced all the relevant
documents and that the subset of hearings within the general
commission mandate can start on Wednesday.
With respect to the specific question of the hon. member on the
Somalia related documents, there has been some considerable
progress made on the logs and other documentation that came
forward as a result of the search that was conducted under the
auspices of the chief of defence staff.
The Somalia liaison team of the department is cataloguing that
and will report to the commission. The commission is satisfied that
the report, combined with testimony that will be given in
subsequent hearings, will get to the bottom of the documentation
issue.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is high time the minister stopped mocking everyone. He
has been sweet talking the House for the past two and a half years.
Nobody believes him anymore. Enough is enough.
Counsel made it clear this morning that gaps remained and
documents were still missing. Would the minister explain why it
takes so much effort and time and so many warnings and
ultimatums for the department to deliver, bit by bit, some of the
documents the commission of inquiry has repeatedly asked for?
When exactly is the minister finally going to assume his
responsibilities, for once?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this minister
and the government took its responsibility by setting up the
Somalia commission specifically to deal with issues such as
documentation.
There were documents altered. There were documents
destroyed. Was there a cover-up? These are the matters on which
the inquiry will get to the bottom.
What the commission asked us earlier in the week was to
produce a cataloguing of the documents themselves. It said that
they were dissatisfied at that point in time with the explanations of
the department.
(1120 )
I think some real progress has been made. It has been reflected in
what the commission counsel has said this morning. I understand
the commission counsel has said that the documents which have
come forward and which are now being catalogued in the report by
the Somalia liaison team together with testimony under the
auspices of the mandate of the commission will get to the bottom of
it and will address the specific question of the hon. member.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we were reminded this morning that the military police
were told last fall by a second officer, who confirmed the statement
of Colonel Haswell, that the army chief of staff along with other
officers developed a plan to change the name of documents
requested under the Access to Information Act.
As this new information considerably undermines the credibility
of the minister and the chief of staff, why is the minister refusing to
relieve General Boyle temporarily of his duties, at least for as long
as it takes the commission of inquiry to thoroughly examine this
whole sad affair and people to regain their trust in the army and the
government?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answers to
that specific question were given earlier this week in replies to
questions put forward by members of the Reform Party. I will not
take very much time of the House to go into that except to say that
we in this country believe in due process. Due process means that
people have a right to give their views, their side of a story to
defend themselves against accusations.
1707
On Wednesday the Somalia commission will start hearings on
the specific issue. I would ask for patience because I think
Canadians understand that all the answers will be forthcoming at
the commission, not here in the House of Commons.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance confirmed that up to a
billion dollars will be paid to the governments of the maritime
provinces as compensation for their potential loss of tax receipts
due to the process of harmonizing the GST and provincial taxes.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Why does
negotiating the harmonization of the GST with the sales tax in the
maritime provinces require all Quebecers and all Canadians to foot
the bill for a portion of the consumer taxes currently assumed by
the people of the maritimes?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
I said yesterday in response to the hon. member's question, there is
no announcement yet. We are currently negotiating. I shall be
pleased, if the negotiations are successful, to answer specific
questions on the agreement, if one is reached.
Nevertheless, the hon. member will understand that I am going
to defend the principle that the regions of this country must help
each other. Otherwise, this would be a denial of such things as
equalization, where three of this country's provinces help out the
other seven.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister is mixing applies and oranges. If he wants to
have an equalization formula with his new GST reform, let him say
so. We are talking of two totally different things.
The GST and the provincial sales tax have already been
harmonized in Quebec. There was no negotiation on compensation.
Do you know what kind of a message that sends to Quebec? That
any time you co-operate with the federal government, you end up
paying for it. If there is a $1 billion compensation payment to the
maritime provinces, that means Quebecers will be paying $250
million to the governments of the maritime provinces, to their
treasuries, as compensation for those governments' lower tax
receipts. Where is the logic in that?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member's position is totally ridiculous, perhaps because of
his lack of understanding of Canada. Canada is a country in which
the regions help each other out.
For example, if Canada decides to help out the aeronautical
industry, Montreal will reap the benefit, not Saskatchewan or New
Brunswick. Or, another example, if it decides to help out the
pharmaceutical industry, as in fact it has, Montreal will reap the
benefit, not Alberta or Prince Edward Island.
(1125)
That is the principle of what a country is. We have enormous
assets and should place those assets at the service of the country as
a whole.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
The minister desperately wants Canadians to believe that the
military brass did not try to cover up the Somalia scandal. He
desperately wants us to believe that missing and altered documents
were simply the result of computer error or clerical error. Twelve
boxes of documents. That is what senior defence officials were
forced to grudgingly turn over to the Somalia inquiry.
The commission counsel announced this morning that there are
still gaps. How much more evidence does the minister need before
he takes some action, any action, on the Somalia cover-up?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member again continues to make very serious allegations which do
not reflect what was said this morning by the commission.
I answered his specific questions which were posed a little
earlier with respect to the documentation, but I will briefly repeat
them.
On the public affairs issue, those documents will be the subject
of discussions and hearings beginning on Wednesday. The
commission is satisfied that all the documents that have come
forward, together with testimony, should enable the commission to
reach the goal of its mandate, which is to get to the bottom of the
entire-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the minister tries to make us believe that this was a
timely delivery of documents when he knows full well that these
documents should have been delivered a year ago to the Somalia
commission.
Along with the 12 boxes of information turned over to the
inquiry, we also learned from Roberto Gonzales, a former director
general of public affairs at DND, that General Boyle approved of a
1708
plan to hide important Somalia documents. This confirms earlier
allegations made by Colonel Haswell who said that Boyle, de
Chastelain and Mr. Robert Fowler knew of the planned cover-up.
Can the minister confirm today that General Boyle had nothing
whatsoever to do with the cover-up?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I really should
refuse to answer such innuendo. The hon. member has made
selective accusations every day in the House. He has maligned a
public servant, who is the chief of defence staff.
All of these matters will be dealt with by the commission
starting next Wednesday. That is the place where all the evidence
should be submitted. That is the place where people should be
heard. That is the place where conclusions should be drawn.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, why will the minister not show some leadership and
take the bull by the horns instead of dragging the bull into the
House each and every day?
General Boyle said he had no knowledge of a plan to alter,
rename and destroy documents related to the Somalia affair.
Colonel Haswell and Roberto Gonzales say that is not true. They
say that all Somalia information requests had to be approved by
General Boyle. Boyle's signature even appears-
The Deputy Speaker: The member will please put his question
directly.
Mr. Hart: Why is the minister allowing Boyle to stay in charge
when all of the evidence indicates that Boyle is involved in this
cover-up?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member can be assured that I certainly have taken the bull by the
horns. I have done that by answering his questions all week.
The hon. member has gone through a number of contortions. I
have pointed them out on the utility of the inquiry.
The hon. member has gone from the position that the chief of
defence staff should never have been appointed, to the chief of
defence staff should resign, to the suggestion that he should step
aside, and to the fact yesterday that he does not blame him. Today
he is back to the earlier accusations.
The member and his party have no credibility on the issue.
Canadians understand that the inquiry will deal with the matter and
will get to the bottom of it with all the answers.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
I listened with interest to the finance minister saying a moment
ago that Canada was willing to help Quebec. I do hope that his good
intentions will materialize with respect to the issue of nuclear
fusion.
(1130)
Since we started asking the natural resources minister questions
on the tokamak project, she has been giving us rubbish for answers.
For instance, she said that in Quebec the loss of this project would
be balanced by the manufacturing and sale of Candu reactors,
which is false, since this will benefit mainly New Brunswick and
Ontario.
Moreover she told us that Quebec is getting 25 per cent of her
department's expenditures. We checked, the actual figure is 8 per
cent, and it will fall below 6 per cent with the cancellation of the
tokamak project.
Can the federal government bring its Minister of Natural
Resources back to her right mind and make sure that Quebec is no
longer penalized in such a way, starting with re-establishing its
$7.5 million contribution to the tokamak project, the product of 20
years of efforts, research, investment and world level expertise?
[English]
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the
hon. member says, fusion research was not only cut in Quebec, it
was also cut in Ontario. The Quebec component cut was $4.4
million; the Ontario component cut was $7.2 million, nearly twice
as much.
We are not abandoning Quebec. Natural Resources Canada R
and D initiatives in Quebec are, and I will read them: Energy
Diversification Research Laboratory in Varennes; Quebec
Geoscience; Candu; Val-D'Or laboratory; Canada Centre for
Geomatics-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member on a supplementary.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I hope
that one of these days someone in this government is going to rise
and give intelligent answers to our questions. The parliamentary
secretary should know that the amount the federal government is
withdrawing from the tokamak project is $7.5 million.
1709
Is the federal government finally going to decide to answer, on
behalf of the Minister of Natural Resources, a letter dated April
2 and signed by the deputy premier of Quebec-
The Deputy Speaker: I would ask the member to put his
question immediately.
Mr. Bergeron: I will repeat my question, Mr. Speaker. Is the
government finally going to decide to answer, on behalf of the
Minister of Natural Resources, a letter dated April 2 and signed by
the deputy premier of Quebec, minister of state for natural
resources and minister responsible for industry and trade?
The Deputy Speaker: The parliamentary secretary.
[English]
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me remind the
member it is not only the federal Liberal government that is
making difficult choices. He should look in his own backyard.
The PQ government has cut $350 million from hospitals, from
the sick; $65 million from Cégeps, junior colleges; $300 million
from primary-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Centre.
* * *
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the finance minister had a little problem with his throat. I hope it
has cleared up today. My question is directed to him.
He said yesterday that harmonization will lead to a better tax for
consumers and for small business. How can that be, given that the
combined tax increases taxes by 8 per cent on goods and services in
areas that were untaxed before, areas like children's textbooks,
wheelchairs and medical supplies, just to name a few?
The finance minister is willing to spend a billion dollars from the
federal coffers to compensate three Liberal provinces for any lost
revenues. Who will compensate the taxpayers of these provinces
for their extra personal costs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member ought to know that the fundamental problem with
most of the provincial sales taxes is that they are embedded in the
price at each successive stage. Therefore the consumer pays a great
deal more in tax under most provincial sales taxes than under the
GST. The net result of this will be a lowering of the tax on all of
those items that are currently taxed under provincial taxes.
(1135)
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if that is
the case, then why are all the provinces saying there are lost
revenues?
The finance minister is wreaking havoc in the Atlantic provinces
with his bad harmonization tax. It is putting Prince Edward Island
at a competitive disadvantage. Conservative provincial
governments have said no. NDP provincial governments have said
no. Only three Liberal provincial governments have said yes,
thanks to a billion dollar bribe just to keep the deputy minister
around a little longer.
Why does the finance minister not do the right thing and for the
sake of all Canadians get rid of, abolish, kill, eliminate, scrap and
agree to quit if he does not, this monster he is creating called
harmonization with compensation?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
one of the principles upon which this country has been built is that
one region of the country helps another whether it be through
equalization, the social transfer or the way in which stabilization
payments are made by the federal government to help provincial
governments that have had difficulty.
I find it very difficult to hear members of the opposition,
whether they be from the Bloc Quebecois or the Reform Party,
essentially say that certain regions of the country should not help
the others when there is a process of adjustment. I do not share that
view. This is one country and one country in a multitude of others.
We are going to stand up to the rest of the world because we will
stand together. We will not be divided.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
The Commission of inquiry into our national blood supply is
caught in a legal tangle, because of all the confusion surrounding
the mandate of the commission. There is no agreement over the
authority of the Krever commission to issue notices of possible
misconduct, hence the court proceedings. The opposition reminds
the government that its priority should go to the victims of tainted
blood and not this legal battle.
For everyone's benefit and because this is a federal inquiry and a
public health issue-
The Deputy Speaker: Was the question put?
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, at the time the people
across the way were calling for my question, I was putting it. What
more do you want?
1710
Again, here is my question: For everyone's benefit and because
this is a federal inquiry and a public health issue, can the minister
dispel the confusion surrounding the mandate of the commission
by clearly stating his position on this matter?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Krever inquiry was set up to inquire into the problems that were
faced with the blood supply. It is the desire of the government and
all provincial governments to see that the report is finalized and
brought forward.
The member will note that the interim recommendations have
been acted upon by the federal government. An extension has been
granted to Mr. Justice Krever and the commission to allow their
work to be completed. The reason for the court proceedings is to
ensure that the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness are
applied throughout the proceedings. We are also hoping for a
finalized report as soon as possible.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, can the minister tell us if the commission will in fact be
entitled to issue notices of possible misconduct?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
with respect to the matters that are now before the court, it would
be inappropriate to comment on the matter. However, it is the
desire of this government and all parties involved to ensure that the
rules of procedural fairness and natural justice are applied
throughout the proceedings from start to finish.
We look forward to the decision of the court and ultimately to the
report of Mr. Justice Krever.
* * *
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The west coast fishery is being assaulted by the minister.
Fishermen are being told to sell their licences back before the
government discloses what the fish harvest quota will be.
(1140)
Fishermen cannot possibly make a rational decision about
whether to get out of business when they are not being told how
many fish they will be able to catch. This is more than absurd, it is
an insult.
On behalf of fishermen whose livelihoods are at stake, will the
minister delay the buy back until the fishermen know the future of
fish quotas in British Columbia?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I could give a short answer but I know the hon.
member is sensitive to the needs and concerns of commercial
fishermen.
This program is designed to address the very sad state of the
salmon fishery in British Columbia. I know he is aware of that. It is
also designed in such a manner that although it is tough medicine
and a bold program, it has to address in a very specific manner the
reduction of the capacity, which everybody agrees is the problem in
the industry.
Nobody has been told to return their licences. This is a voluntary
program which has been championed by the industry. We believe
the program will work. I certainly would appreciate the hon.
member's support.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the
minister is not aware that there was a delegation of people here
from British Columbia yesterday representing half a million
commercial fishermen, people in small communities who do not
agree with his plan.
When I asked him the other day if he would set quotas before
implementing the buy back he said ``regrettably not.'' What is
regrettable is the total disregard the government and the minister
continually show for the fishermen on the west coast.
The minister has the power to delay the buy back until the quotas
are set. Why he is refusing to do so I do not know. Why is he
refusing to ensure the stability of the industry and the stable
income of families that depend on the fishery?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, not to set a fine point on this, I want to make sure the
hon. member knows and the House realizes that it is 500,000
people in the communities. The number of commercial fishermen,
including workers in the plants, is 20,000. I am sure he would not
want to leave that impression.
The parliamentary secretary met with these concerned groups
yesterday. It is my intention to meet with them after question
period to hear their concerns.
I also remind the hon. member there are many groups in his area
that support the fishermen. I quote one British Columbia
fisherman: ``Fleet reduction is too important to the survival of the
west coast salmon industry not to be implemented''.
I will stick tough with this program and it will continue.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
1711
The reputation of the Maurice Lamontagne Institute is firmly
established. This institute employs 280 people at the present time
and offers, among other things, a fish stock evaluation program
as well as hydrographic services. Yet, its future is threatened.
The Maurice Lamontagne Institute's hydrographic service is one
of its main components. Can the minister confirm to us that his
department is about to shut down this service and transfer the
activities to Cornwall, Ontario, which would mean the loss of
dozens of jobs in Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question and the
courtesy he has afforded me by discussing this beforehand.
The institute is a well respected one which essentially looks after
research in the St. Lawrence River and the St. Lawrence estuary. It
is an institute that regrettably has come under the program review
and there have been program reductions.
The work continuing in the valuable research in his institute will
continue despite the cuts. We will have to cut back in certain areas.
However, I assure the hon. member and the House this valuable
institute, so highly respected, will continue to exist.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Maurice Lamontagne Institute has to continue to exist, but it is
getting smaller and smaller each year, and Quebecers are really
concerned about that.
Is the minister telling us that, just like in Varennes, the federal
government is reducing even more its financial participation in
advanced research in Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member this is not the case.
(1145)
There have been similar institutes oriented in areas other than
marine science. For example, we had the same program at the
freshwater institute and the Great Lakes experimental stations.
It is all part of the requirement of my department to reduce our
operation by 40 per cent. It applies from one coast to the other.
* * *
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the sentinel fishing program has been a valuable tool
in the monitoring of groundfish stocks currently under moratoria.
The program has also helped to foster a positive relationship
between scientists and fishermen.
Will the minister assure the House the sentinel fishing program
will continue?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member and congratulate him on his
first question in the House. The question is important. As
everybody in the House knows, the state of the cod stocks in
Atlantic Canada is dangerously low, particularly the northern cod
stocks.
The purpose of this program is to have commercial fishermen
who are properly trained to measure, under controlled
circumstances, the inshore fishery by actually setting nets and
counting fish. This is a valuable complement to the scientific
surveys carried out offshore and in other community areas.
The real purpose is to measure the abundance and the migration
pattern, to have real biological data which complement scientific
data and to work in harmony with scientists in close consultation
for the systematic betterment of-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Crowfoot.
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this week the
justice committee has heard heartbreaking testimony about how the
Young Offenders Act has failed Canadians. The chiefs of police
association said yesterday that the YOA has done more to
undermine faith-
The Deputy Speaker: Would the hon. member please not refer
to matters in committee and put the question directly. Rephrase the
question.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, my question for the justice officials
is why has the government ignored victims' pleas by refusing to
publish the names of violent young offenders, abolish the
minimum age of 12 for young offenders and hold parents
financially responsible for children's criminal actions when
appropriate?
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for his question. As the hon. member is
aware, the government has acted in relation to the Young Offenders
Act already, increasing penalties for the most serious crimes and
reversing the onus as to whether a youth case should be tried in
adult court.
We are now engaged in a process in the justice committee to hear
input on further possible changes. He is part of that committee and
will sit with us as we-
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Crowfoot.
1712
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the jury is
in on many of the obvious reforms to the Young Offenders Act.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice explain to
the parents of victims why the minister under Bill C-37 reduced
the parole eligibility of a young offender convicted of second
degree murder from a maximum of 10 years to 7 years?
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
the hon. member is aware, we have implemented changes to the
Young Offenders Act to stiffen the penalties in the most serious
cases.
We continue to review the matter through the justice committee
and we look forward to hearing the results of that report.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
morning in Quebec City, all stakeholders in Quebec's marine sector
expressed a clear consensus against the new fee structure the
minister of fisheries is about to impose.
Quebec's Minister of Transportation and the seven mayors of the
cities with the biggest ports in Quebec, together with
representatives of the aluminum industry and all stakeholders in
the marine sector, stated very clearly that the minister's new fee
structure would likely have a disastrous impact on the Quebec
economy.
(1150)
Can the minister of fisheries tell us if his government intends to
respect this Quebec consensus against a new fee structure that
could have disastrous consequences on the Quebec economy and
on all ports along the St. Lawrence?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. He is aware
we have been through this procedure since January. We have
consulted with the industry. We have taken recommendations from
the Marine Advisory Board.
The hon. member is involved in the final report of the fisheries
committee on this very important subject. I appreciate his
co-operation and the contribution he is making.
One more time, I assure the House and the hon. member that in
this project as we ratchet up from $20 million, $40 million, $60
million over a period of four years, we will put together a system
that is the most fair and equitable to all parts of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, apart from the
problem with the figures the minister just quoted, the consensus I
referred to in my first question also reflects that problem.
Does the minister of fisheries admit he is duty bound to respect
such a broad consensus against his proposal as drafted, which
affects not only Quebec but also Ontario and many stakeholders in
the maritimes, including Newfoundland's Oceanex and the port of
Halifax?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I may have missed the intonation of the last part of the
hon. member's question but I do not think it is important to the
answer.
All these aspects have been taken into consideration. Nobody
wants to pay any more for anything. The regrettable part of this is
we have to go forward with it. It has been passed by this very
Parliament.
If the hon. member is trying to derail this issue and defer it for
another time, it will cost the industry more money. I am sure he
would not want to be part of something to do that.
* * *
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Reform Party wants deregulation for the benefit of
consumers, but letting banks into car leasing will not be good for
consumers. Without more competition among banks, it will only
fatten their already fat wallets.
Will the minister assure the House banks will not be allowed to
expand their business until they are also forced to face more
competition?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is
well aware there will be a policy paper put out by the government
in a little while which will treat many of these issues.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, all the minister's recent announcements are about
demands from the banks for more business.
The demands by others for more freedom to compete with the
banks are never mentioned. I am sure this has nothing to do with
the banks' generous financial support for the Liberal Party and the
government's $105,000 grant to the Canadian Bankers Association.
Will the minister assure the House that the up-coming white
paper will level the regulatory playing field between banks and
their competitors?
1713
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, he will have to wait
for the white paper to see what it says.
* * *
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
For over two years now the people of Lebanon have made
immense sacrifices to rebuild their beleaguered country, which has
been laid waste by foreign invaders.
The reopening of the Canadian embassy inspired great hope for
the Lebanese people, but an excessive military reprisal by Israel
destroyed all that and the mounting debt toll is a disgrace. The
decisive attack on an electrical power plant in the populous city of
Beirut is an example of the excess.
(1155 )
I ask the minister what the Canadian government intends to do to
come to the aid of hundreds of thousands displaced Lebanese
people. In particular, what influence can it bring to the United
Nations to assure that resolution 425 will be respected once and for
all?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada
deplores the attacks against the civil population of Lebanon and the
peacekeeping base within Lebanon in recent days.
We have received a request from the International Red Cross for
assistance to the people of Lebanon and we are at his moment
considering what we can do to come to their aid. It is something we
intend to do.
Canada is not a member of the security council of the United
Nations. Yesterday we did support its resolution deploring the
attacks against Lebanon and we have asked for an immediate
ceasefire on the part of all parties. We want to see negotiations
bring about a peaceful resolution to the situation there.
Canada does support the integrity of Lebanon's territory through
resolution 425. We will do everything we can to assure that
integrity is achieved through ongoing negotiated peace accords in
the area.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on December 20,
1993, the Clerk of the Privy Council, Jocelyne Bourgon, wrote to
Quebec's Deputy Minister of Transportation, Georges Lalande, that
the Government of Canada's title over railway property would be
transferred over a five year period. This seems to indicate that
complete ownership will be transferred to CN by 1998.
Based on the foregoing, does the Minister of Transport recognize
the facts stated in the letter written by the Clerk of the Privy
Council and could he at the same time recognize that, until the
property transfer has been completed, the federal government is
still fully responsible for restoring the Quebec bridge?
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. He has shown great interest in the pont de Québec. We
have to realize this is a magnificent structure. I have seen it from a
boat underneath, et cetera.
However, CN is the owner of the pont de Québec and CN is
responsible for it and charged with paying for the renovations to the
bridge. It fully intends to, with $1.5 million to $2 million in bridge
repairs this summer. More could be had if the hon. member can
impress upon the minister of transport in the province of Quebec to
talk to CN to get more funding to maintain that wonderful,
beautiful structure, the pont de Québec.
* * *
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has announced it intends to reintroduce
Bill C-22, a bill which cancelled the Pearson development contract
retroactively so as to say no contract existed.
The Supreme Court of Ontario has already ruled the contract was
valid and that the government was in breach of that contract.
Subsequent government appeals have been lost by the government.
Can the minister explain how he can justify reintroducing this
unconstitutional bill so that history can be rewritten to suit the
Liberal Party?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in a few minutes it is the intention
of the federal government to reintroduce on behalf of the Minister
of Transport the so-called Pearson bill in its original form and at
the stage it was at prior to prorogation. It then will move on
immediately to the Senate for first reading.
It was a bad deal then and it is still a bad deal. Maybe it is more
in the interest of the member to support what is important to the
Canadian taxpayer than to support the interests of his friends the
lobbyists.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is to the minister of fisheries. As a member for British Columbia, I
feel obligated to say there is a sense of rage and British Columbians
1714
are feeling betrayed by the minister of fisheries in imposing the
so-called Mifflin plan as a solution.
There were 500,000 coastal representatives on Parliament Hill
yesterday, saying his plan is wrong. Will the minister listen to the
people of British Columbia this time and pull back from
implementing his plan? This would allow British Columbians to
have proper input into the decision on how to deal with the fishery
crisis.
(1200)
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have made it clear that I will be meeting with a
group from British Columbia. I have great sensitivity to their
concerns but I have to tell the member that in this matter the fish
come first, the fishermen and then the politics.
* * *
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during the last
week of March, Canada hosted Globe '96 in Vancouver, an
international trade fair and conference on developing the business
of the environment.
What are the direct benefits to Canada from the money we spent
to host this conference?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the member not only for his question but for the
interest he has consistently displayed since being elected to this
Chamber on the whole question and file of the environment.
The Globe conference was probably the premier conference
anywhere in the world that very eloquently showcased
environmental technologies. There were representatives from 60
different countries and 123 officials just from China. It says that
there are 4,500 small and medium size Canadian firms employing
200,000 Canadians in good jobs, jobs for the economy. It also
underscores that it is not a question of a good environment or jobs;
we can, we should and we will have both.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Health, who seems to be a little
lonesome today, as no questions have been put to him so far. Dairy
producers are going through very rough times. After losing federal
subsidies, they now have to battle American dairy producers on
import tariffs.
Why does the minister want to make the lives of dairy producers,
and those who make cheese from raw milk in particular, even more
difficult with a study aimed at banning cheese made from raw
milk?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am tempted to respond in a way which is somewhat repugnant of
the kind of question the hon. member has put forward. Is the hon.
member suggesting that the Minister of Health, federally or
provincially, when they become aware of scientific evidence which
suggests that the risk will be increased that we not share that
information with Canadians?
The purposes of gazetting the information is to consult with the
industry to make sure there will be no ill effects in terms of health
for any Canadian.
I hope the hon. member who is a reasonable individual most of
the time would want to support that kind of approach.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Stephan Zbikowski, a Canadian citizen from the riding of
Verchères, who was arrested in Venezuela in December 1994 for
cocaine trafficking, has been held in Carabobo maximum security
penitentiary ever since. Note that no charges have yet been laid
against Mr. Zbikowski by Venezuelan authorities and that, while
awaiting trial, he is being held with inmates considered to be
dangerous offenders.
In light of the fact that Mr. Zbikowski has been detained for 16
months without trial and that the actions taken by Canadian
officials were unsuccessful, does the minister plan to exert
diplomatic pressure to speed things up so that this Canadian citizen
can finally be tried?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our Department of Foreign
Affairs provides very good consular services to Canadians in
trouble abroad.
I am not familiar with the details of this particular case but I
would be very happy to put our department in contact with the hon.
member so that he can receive some answers about this case.
1715
(1205)
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, over
the last few weeks I have noticed that some members of this House
know very little about the tokamak issue. For their benefit, I am
seeking the unanimous consent of the House to table the letter
which was signed by the three Quebec ministers and which
provides the real figures, the real facts and the real issues relating
to tokamak.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
_____________________________________________
1715
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 38(6), I have the
honour to table, in both official languages, the government's
responses to 14 petitions.
* * *
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in
both official languages, the reports of the Canada-Europe
Parliamentary Association to the monitoring of Russian elections
for the OSCE parliamentary assembly held in Russia from
December 13 to 19, 1995, and to the meetings of the bureau and the
standing committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE
held in Vienna on January 10 and 11, 1996.
* * *
Hon. Douglas Young (for the Minister of Transport, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-28, an act respecting certain
agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation of
Terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wish to state that this
bill is in the same form as Bill C-22 of the first session of the 35th
Parliament at the time of prorogation. I therefore request that it be
reinstated as provided in the special order adopted on March 4,
1996.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is satisfied that the bill is in the
same form as Bill C-22 was at the time of prorogation of the first
session of this Parliament.
[Translation]
Consequently, pursuant to order adopted Monday, March 4,
1996, the bill is deemed to have been passed at all stages in the
House.
[English]
Mr. Gouk: Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent
of the House for permission to ask the minister who just introduced
the bill if in the name of democracy he would permit a single
question on this subject.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for that
request?
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-268, an act to amend the Department
of Agriculture and Agri-Food Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to delete the
section of the agriculture act which permits the governor in council
to assign powers or duties to the minister of agriculture. These
powers are currently used to create new agricultural programs.
The reports of the Auditor General of Canada tabled in the House
in 1989 and in 1992 recommended that this power be deleted from
the act. This bill carries out that purpose and will require the
minister to come to the House if he seeks to establish a new
agricultural program rather than create it on his own without the
proper authority.
That is the purpose of the amendment to the act. It is a short and
very simple act and I hope it will commend itself to all hon.
members.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-269, an act to amend the Canada
Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act.
1716
(1210 )
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to ensure that
when a vacancy occurs in the representation, a byelection shall be
held within 80 days after the Speaker sends his warrant to the Chief
Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-270, an act to amend the Financial
Administration Act (session of Parliament).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment to the
Financial Administration Act is to prevent the kind of abuse this
House suffered under the previous Tory government when in 1989
special warrants of the Governor General were used and the regular
supply proceedings were thereby avoided.
The purpose of this act is to stop that kind of abuse of
Parliament. It will ensure that Governor General warrants may not
be used between sessions of Parliament but only after a dissolution
of Parliament and before the recall of a new Parliament.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-271, an act to amend the Public
Service Employment Act (appeal procedures).
He said: Mr. Speaker, in 1988 the Standing Joint Committee for
Regulatory Scrutiny adopted a report which recommended changes
in the regulations dealing with the way the Public Service
Commission deals with appeals.
The report of the committee was apparently adopted by the
House and a response was required from the government. The
response came in the dying days of the session before the election
in 1988 and the commission which reports to Parliament decided
not to proceed with any of the recommendations.
Subsequently, the act has been amended in some areas but some
other changes are contained in this bill. In view of the intransigence
of the commission and in view of the other changes that were not
adopted, I have proceeded with this bill again, as I had done so in
the previous Parliament, in order to make it mandatory in the act
that certain procedural safeguards recommended by the committee
in that old Parliament be incorporated as part of the rules of the
Public Service Commission.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the
issue was raised on several occasions in this House over the last
two years, you are aware of the plight of a constituent of mine, Tran
Trieu Quan, who has been imprisoned in Vietnam for over two
years now.
What Mr. Tran has been going through has generated sympathy
and compassion in the Quebec City region and throughout the
province. The 4,540 petitioners who signed this second petition are
asking Parliament to ensure the safety and release of Mr. Tran at
the earliest opportunity.
[English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have two
petitions to present today.
The first petition requests that the Government of Canada not
amend the human rights act to include the phrase sexual
orientation. The petitioners fear that such an inclusion would
indicate societal approval of homosexual behaviour. The
petitioners believe that government should not legitimize this
behaviour against the clear wishes of the majority.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my second
petition contains the signatures of 236 constituents.
These petitioners point out that this government is currently
spending $90 million a day more than it is bringing in. The
petitioners request that the government cuts spending in order to
balance the budget by December 31, 1998, without any new taxes
or tax increases.
* * *
(1215 )
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
>
1717
1717
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that C-18, an act
to establish the Department of Health and to amend and repeal
certain acts, be read the third time and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary had the
floor and if he wishes he is entitled to speak for another 36 minutes.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know why you would want to
limit me. We are talking about something that is fundamental to the
Canadian health system. We are talking about responsibility,
jurisdiction and accountability.
To reframe everything for everyone's edification, when the
debate was interrupted by question period I was talking about
jurisdiction in the Constitution of Canada. I was looking at why and
how it was flexible and why and how the role of the federal
government has evolved and continues to evolve under those
jurisdictions.
When interrupted I was making reference to section 92.
Canada's Constitution does not begin and end with section 92. That
is most particularly true in the field of health. Very briefly, let me
describe what that means.
I see my esteemed colleague has joined the ranks of the House.
He is listening very attentively so that I make all of the appropriate
references under the Constitution. I refer to the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs who is a constitutional expert. I look
forward to his applauding my references.
Section 91(27) gives the Parliament of Canada exclusive
jurisdiction over criminal law, the basis for a number of laws
protecting public health and safety. Section 91(2) assigns
responsibilities to the federal government for international and
interprovincial trade. This forms the basis for federal regulations
on drugs and medical devices, as an example.
Section 91(11) gives the federal Parliament explicit power over
quarantine and marine hospitals, which I would add, reveals a good
deal of the thinking back in 1867 about where matters cease to be
local and begin to take on national significance.
Section 91(7) concerns military and veterans. Section 91(8) has
to do with the federal public service and section 91(4) concerns
aboriginals and lands reserved to aboriginals.
Every one of these powers establishes or implies a clear federal
role in health issues. They account for the considerable array of the
duties and responsibilities set out in clause 4 of Bill C-18.
Moreover, they account for the vast majority of Health Canada's
operating expenses. Health, when viewed from a perspective of
federal constitutional responsibilities, is clearly a good deal
broader than the health care delivered. It is a comprehensive view
and has been for many years.
This is where other federal powers have come into play. Much
has been made in the course of debate of the federal spending
power. That is specified in section 91(1A) of the Constitution.
Much has been made of the power to raise money by any mode of
taxation for which there is provision in section 91(3).
However, do these powers broaden the sphere of federal
regulation? Do they offer the opportunity for jurisdiction by
stealth, as it were? The reality is that nothing in the Constitution
gives the federal Parliament the means to regulate provincial
matters in the guise of spending powers. I think my hon. colleague
would agree. It can attach conditions to the funds it makes
available to the provinces. However, just as it cannot compel the
provinces to accept the funds it offers, neither does it buy
jurisdiction when provinces accept those funds.
(1220 )
Clause 12 of Bill C-18 makes this limitation clear. It continues a
point that was made in the existing Department of National Health
and Welfare Act:
12. Nothing in this Act or the regulations authorizes the Minister or any
officer or employee of the Department to exercise any jurisdiction or control
over any health authority operating under the laws of any province.
This is why the Canada Health Act does not forbid user fees, if I
can conjure up the term, nor does it require provincial legislatures
to forbid them. I ask members to take careful note of the language
being used. It simply makes it clear that any province that decides
to finance medically necessary health services with user fees can
expect a corresponding reduction in federal funding. They cannot
have it both ways. The government is not obliged as a federal entity
to spend money where it has a fundamental objection. This brings
me to another myth, that is, the federal government is intruding in
provincial jurisdiction.
It has been a constant theme in opposition commentary at almost
every stage of the debate so far. Both opposition parties have made
common cause in their belief that the best government in Ottawa is
no government in Ottawa.
1718
That is difficult to understand from members who get
themselves elected to come to Parliament to represent the national
interest. The motivation for the federal government's involvement
in health financing does not derive from any desire to centralize
powers. No one here has a wish to invade a field of purely
provincial jurisdiction.
The federal role in health has been an exercise of leadership.
There are those who would hold that leadership is not a word that is
acceptable. Some of my colleagues opposite might think it is even
a dirty word today. Some believe it to be a power grab. We should
never apologize for saying that federal leadership in health is a
commitment that Canadians expect and want exercised. I dare say
that examples of that leadership abound.
We based our commitments on health to Canadians during the
1993 election campaign in a belief that when there are national
needs, we need national action. It was part of our platform as a
party and part of our platform as a government. It was the basis of
programs outlined in the red book commitments. It continues to be
the basis of action since. I would like to cite an example.
The Minister of Health has announced a leadership initiative in
the blood system. A question came up today in question period.
The government understands that the blood system needs to be
restructured. Rebuilding the system is appropriate and right for the
government to pursue in partnership with other systems.
When we recognize that, we give ample evidence of the kind of
leadership role that the government has been exercising. A
restructured system can only enhance the government's current
efforts as a regulator to ensure safety and quality of the blood
supply.
It is essential, I might add, as the minister underscored in
question period, to act now and to begin the process before Justice
Krever and his inquiry makes the final recommendations. There is
no need to wait. The final report will not be ignored. It will be
looked at as a building block of the new system.
Let me offer another example, if I may, of the kind of leadership
Canadians want and support. In July 1994, some 18 months ago,
the then Minister of Health, announced the Canada prenatal
nutrition program. The program is helping to support other
programs for pregnant women who have a high risk of delivering
low birth weight babies. Members probably want to know why that
is important. These programs provide food supplementation,
nutrition, lifestyle counselling and information to such women.
The government designed this program to dovetail with existing
provincial initiatives to encourage them where they do not now
exist. Much of the program in the red book was based on building
partnerships, not stimulating competition, at least in the area of
government services. It was not designed to duplicate good
programs that were already in place or to override them.
(1225)
It should be noted that it could cost up to $60,000 to meet the
health needs of just one low birth weight baby. That is just the
immediate financial cost. The price in developmental delays that
can echo through the lifetime of such an individual, family and
society are incalculable. These children start life well behind
others. Many, unfortunately never catch up.
When you realize that 21,000 such babies are born each year,
you begin to get an appreciation of the sheer magnitude of the
problems being addressed by that program.
To hear some during the course of this debate, the federal
government should just stick to its knitting and stay out of issues
such as this. They seem to suggest that if there is no need for
leadership, perhaps some provincial government may take action.
If less affluent provinces cannot afford to take action, it is just one
of those things, c'est la vie, as they say en français. That is their
stand. It is not ours.
We have looked at the facts and the needs and we have taken
action. Canadians will not buy limp excuses for inaction from my
colleagues opposite, not for one second. They know that leadership
does not involve the use of the word perhaps or the word may. They
recognize that leadership is about seeing what needs to be done and
finding the best way to do it.
Of course, the defining example of federal leadership in health
has been our staunch defence of the principles of the Canada Health
Act. The Minister of Health has been clear in his stand. He has said
that he will debate the principles of the Canada Health Act with
anyone, anywhere, at any time. One thing should be clear to all
colleagues. Although the five principles may be debatable, they are
not negotiable.
The government has never claimed that it wants to tell the
provinces how to run their health systems. However, it does claim a
nation building role of setting values that Canadians share no
matter where they live.
It is equally clear that Canadians trust the government to defend
those values. Canadians will not support the whittling away of the
principles of medicare which some provinces have attempted.
Canadians are clearly supportive of the federal government in its
resolve to stand by those principles. Clearly, they do not accept
such thin rationale, including the ones trotted out here by the
opposition parties which pretend to support the principles of
medicare while permitting their decline and erosion.
Leadership means taking a stand on fundamental issues.
Medicare is one of those issues. I dare say that Canadians are happy
of it.
Let us put the leadership issue into context. There is a real world
of relations between the federal government and the provinces. It
is not one of differences but one of co-operation. The leadership the
government exercises in the field of health does not come from the
1719
barricades. It comes from a long tradition of commitment to the
health of Canadians. That commitment is shared by the provinces
and the territories.
(1230 )
It is something that cannot be reflected in a written Constitution.
It does not appear in the media obsession of conflict and tough
talking sound bites, in five-second clips; yet it is a reality, day in
and day out.
For us to achieve our health goals for Canadians, the federal
government needs to work with provincial and territorial
governments, and so we do. All governments need to work with
health professionals and administrators, interested organizations
and others with a contribution toward better health for Canadians.
Once again, we do.
That co-operation takes place in so many ways. For example, we
have 12 distinct but interlocking systems of health care in Canada.
At a time when some are questioning the merits of federalism, it
says a lot that governments have worked together so well that
Canadians look at twelve systems and see only one.
They see medicare as a national program even if it consists of 12
different provincial and territorial health insurance plans. One
reason for that almost seamless approach to health in Canada is the
constant process of consultation and co-ordination that goes on.
One of the important vehicles we have is the conference of
federal, provincial and territorial ministers of health. This forum
allows governments to work together on research, policy
development and practical issues.
This process of co-ordination allows governments to compare
notes on the big issues that affect all of them. Consider health
system renewal. We have clearly moved passed the time when the
nips and tucks to the status quo will do. The issues are moving too
fast for us to tinker with old approaches and the old paradigms in
many cases.
Consider the broad issues. We have an aging population, which
is already creating important implications for how we structure and
how we deliver care. We have health inequalities that face the poor,
rural dwellers, aboriginal people and women. We have a group of
issues which speaks to how the health system works; cost control,
the supply and distribution of physicians and the respective roles of
all health professionals and need analysis.
The balance between institutional and community based care
and the appropriateness and intensity of care are significant
concerns. They all need good answers.
Leadership means thinking through these issues and their
implications for the health of Canadians in a comprehensive and
intelligent manner. The federal government has taken a leading role
in these efforts through initiatives such as the national forum on
health.
The federal government has never claimed sole ownership of
this issue. We have recognized the impressive work of the
provinces and the territories because they too exercise leadership.
Within health care every province and territory has taken
innovative reform and renewal actions. We have made clear our
belief that we can learn from each other.
We can all contribute to addressing common priorities. Some are
as basic, as the research into clinical practice guidelines. It is hard
to believe but we have no firm idea how effective some common
medical practices are in terms of either costs or results. This is an
affliction for all western societies. Governments are working
together to address issues such as this, but it is something
governments alone can do.
For example, we worked with health professionals and other
interested people in organizations. They are experts as well as users
of the system with a stake in finding the answers. They continue
this in many other areas of research, health, policy and program
delivery.
Federal leadership in health is not about loud claims of moral
power or of playing the constitutional trump cards. The legacy of
leadership is not a hollow relic of the days when government
coffers were bursting. It is a living tradition of looking out for the
interests of all Canadians. It is a living tradition of seeing the gaps
that affect the health of our citizens and in doing something to meet
the need.
(1235)
In a previous item of legislation, the old Bill C-91, there was
some reaction to whether the Minister of Health would assume the
responsibilities and would be held accountable for all of his
responsibilities. Even though there was no question in our minds,
we had a good representation by the hon. member for
Fredericton-York-Sunbury who presented an amendment to
eliminate all confusions. It was widely received by all members on
both sides of the House and passed unanimously.
That is what we mean by looking at leadership. Leadership can
mean action by this government alone but so often these days it
means contributing to shared work. It is a form of leadership the
government still believes to be absolutely important. It is one that
Bill C-18 permits us to carry out.
I hope all members of the House will reflect on that carefully and
give it resounding unanimous support.
1720
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
rise in this debate on Bill C-18, given that I am a new member of
the Standing Committee on Health. I have just come from the
Standing Committee on Human Resources Development where,
today, discussions were continuing on the bill establishing the
Department of Human Resources Development. In my first speech
on health, I have to recognize that the debate is of the same type.
Unfortunately, Quebecers' health care system is not entirely the
product of political decisions and choices made in Quebec. The
federal government has meddled in Quebec's affairs on a number
of occasions. We must remember that the Constitution establishes
health as a provincial matter.
To begin with, it should be remembered that the Quebec health
care system existed long before the federal government intervened.
The Government of Quebec set up the system and has always
ensured its smooth operation. There are those who will claim that
socialized health care was developed in Ottawa, but that is not the
case.
The federal government simply passed the legislation justifying
and providing the means for seizure of provincial jurisdictions.
Every intrusion by the federal government through its legislation
has brought a reaffirmation from the Quebec government of its
control over and desire to exercise its jurisdiction over health care.
In 1987, Thomas Dupéré, of the Commission d'enquête sur les
services de santé et les services sociaux du Québec, wrote that the
implementation of federal programs had simply moved to the
federal arena a debate which had begun at the provincial level and
would have led to the same results in the same time span.
Intrusions started in 1943, when the Federal Department of
Health established a national action plan on medicare. In 1945, it
even proposed the implementation of a national program under full
federal jurisdiction. And the federal government had the resources
to realize its ambitions.
I have some difficulty concentrating on my speech because of
the noise around me. Now, that is better.
(1240)
So, from 1942 to 1947, Ottawa received more than $2 billion
from Quebec which in return got only $100 million, in other words
a pitance.
It is very clear that the federal government wanted to go even
further in its determination to control and to give back to the
provinces, not the tax powers they had before the war, but subsidies
tied to the implementation of programs set up by the Government
of Canada. That is what happened.
This was the beginning of a long centralization campaign by the
federal government. In reaction, the provincial government of
Quebec created its own income tax, Ottawa having refused to
withdraw. Thus was born dual taxation from Quebec and Ottawa.
Successive Quebec premiers-among them Maurice Duplessis,
with his famous slogan ``Give us back our due'', Jean Lesage and
Daniel Johnson Senior-constantly tried to thwart this intrusion
from the federal government and this seizure of some of the
provincial financial powers.
This is how the federal government took upon itself the
responsibility to finance, to some extent, the cost of health care and
services. In so doing, it also grabbed the power to oversee the
development and administration of the health care systems
established by provincial governments.
Provinces wanted to improve their systems, but they had to
organize and finance them at a time when they had just been
stripped of some tax fields. As a result, they had to beg money from
Ottawa. It is still the same today. The federal government may
launch new ideas, but the provinces must find the money to fund
them.
Let us turn to constitutional powers.
The federal government has violated the Constitution of Canada
and still does so today. This is why the Prime Minister does not
want to discuss the Constitution. He wants to proceed without
discussing it.
However, the government itself admits that health and welfare
are areas of provincial jurisdiction. Consequently, the ever growing
federal structures and programs in these fields constitute a form of
interference which periodically sours federal-provincial relations.
More precisely, the Constitution Act of 1867 gives the provinces
complete authority in matters of health, and section 92.7 gives the
provinces jurisdiction over the whole field of health and welfare. It
is in the Constitution.
In order to bypass what was perfectly clear in the Constitution,
the federal government invented a roundabout way to interfere and
called it its spending power.
The federal government cannot interfere directly in areas of
exclusive provincial jurisdiction. So, it uses an indirect
mechanism. It gives provincial governments grants with strings
attached; the provinces must abide by certain conditions for fear of
losing these contributions.
Instead of using its lawmaking power, the federal government
uses its spending power in areas of provincial jurisdiction. In our
opinion, it amounts to financial blackmail using our own tax
money.
In addition to this manufactured power, the federal government
is using some legislative powers which should be limited in scope.
A case in point is legislation derived from the criminal law such as
1721
the Food and Drugs Act, and the Narcotic Control Act. The
government provides services to or pays for the medical expenses
of specific clients such as military personnel, RCMP officers,
inmates, natives, immigrants and refugees. The federal government
tries to increase its responsibilities and to look important by
passing legislation in all these minor areas.
(1245)
Moreover, the federal government sometimes justifies its
interference in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, invoking
an ill-defined concept interpreted in a very broad sense, that of
national interest.
Managing the Department of Health and all the small programs
we described earlier which come under Ottawa's responsibility
uses up only a small part of the budget, but constitutes the bulk of
the administrative activities of the Department of Health. Without
federal interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction, the
department would be small and would only manage residual
federal powers.
In fact, the largest part of federal expenditures is comprised of
amounts paid to provinces through transfer programs. The federal
government gives back with one hand part of what it took from
provinces with the other. This is an example of very costly
duplication which sustains the conflictual situation with the
provinces and exists only because Ottawa is proud to be the one to
sign the cheques. Meanwhile, there is less money for health.
Let us see how this money is distributed to the provinces. In
theory, the Canada Health Act passed adopted in 1984 establishes
the conditions for the allocation of federal grants in the health area.
In fact though, these contributions are paid pursuant to the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal
Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, what we
now call established programs financing. Transfers to provinces do
not come from the health department's budget, they are made by
the Department of Finance.
This creates a bizarre situation where the Department of Health
establishes national objectives and standards that provinces must
abide by if they want to receive transfer payments, but the finance
minister is the one distributing the money and determining the
amounts. That mechanism makes a financial issue out of one which
concerns only federal-provincial arrangements in the health area.
In reality, the health minister is virtually a minister without
portfolio as for the majority of the federal health budget.
This splitting of authority between the establishment of
standards and financing results in a lack of cohesion between the
development of the health policy and its implementation. On the
one hand, the health minister wants to impose higher standards and
closely monitor their application, which results in cost increases
for the provinces, and on the other, the finance minister wants to
reduce his deficit at the expense of the provinces and thus is cutting
payments.
In the Spring of 1995, the National Council of Welfare, an
organization whose mandate is to advise the health minister,
cautioned her to beware of such a situation by saying, and I quote:
``It would be extremely hypocritical to reduce contributions to the
provinces -while increasing the requirements they would have to
meet''.
Despite fiscal arrangements, the transfer act is a federal statute
establishing payments to the provinces unilaterally and without any
consultation. Since 1977, these amounts have either been reduced,
frozen or de-indexed. Their evolution no longer follows the real
costs of provincial programs. In that regard we can say the federal
government has broken its commitment to health care.
(1250)
For over 10 years, the federal government has paid lip service to
health care while at the same time continuously reducing its
spending in this area.
Through established programs financing or EPF, the federal
government transfers money to the provinces for health care and
post-secondary education. The amount given to the provinces
through EPF is paid partly in cash and partly by transferring tax
points from the federal government to the provinces.
In reality, the federal government only spends the amount in
cash that is accounted for in budgetary expenditures. Under the tax
point transfer, a portion of federal taxes goes to the provinces. This
is a way for the government to give back to the provinces some of
the taxation powers it took away from them in the 1940s. How
generous.
As a result of repeated cuts, Quebec will soon stop receiving
cash payments and have to make do with the tax points it already
has. Paradoxically, the federal government will soon stop spending
anything out of its own pocket but will continue to impose its own
standards on Quebec.
Since it was put in place in 1977-78, EPF has led to a unilateral
withdrawal on the part of the federal government. When EPF came
into effect, federal spending on health care was based partly on the
national average and partly on the provinces' actual expenditures
and accounted for some 50 per cent of total health spending.
Contributions to EPF were based on spending during the
1975-76 reference year and indexed to the GNP average per capita
in the three previous years. This clearly showed a commitment to
1722
ensure a relatively stable increase in the federal government's
contribution based on the growth of the Canadian economy.
Since 1986, the federal government has made repeated cuts to
EPF for health care, thus weakening, then severing the agreed upon
link between the increase in federal contributions and economic
growth. In fact, Liberals have continued to reduce financing, a
practice they had vigorously condemned when the Tories were in
power.
In 1986, the federal government announced a 2 per cent
reduction in the EPF indexing factor, which meant that health
transfers would follow the increase in the GNP, less 2 per cent.
In 1989, the indexing factor was once again reduced by 1 per
cent, which meant that health transfers would follow the increase in
the GNP, less 3 per cent.
In 1990, per capita allocations were frozen for two years
supposedly. While health costs kept rising, the federal government
stopped factoring in inflation. The freeze imposed by the federal
government did not stop people from falling ill. This is one area
where magical thinking does not work.
In 1991, this so-called temporary freeze was extended until
1995. In 1995, the current government announced a new program,
the Canada social transfer, which entailed further cuts totalling
$4.5 billion over two years. There is no guarantee whatsoever that
more cuts will not be made in the future.
(1255)
As regards the calculation of the federal contribution, the
National Council of Welfare had this to say in its spring 1995
report: ``No formula is provided in the budget to calculate the
amount payable. Based on recent events, the federal government
should impose a formula or an arbitrary amount''.
So, actual health care costs are not taken into account at all when
calculating federal funding. The government only pays what it is
willing to pay, depending on its mood and on the amount of its
deficit. The national council was right in asking for a formula that
would take into account the actual needs of people, instead of the
best interests of the federal treasury.
As for the Canada social transfer announced in the 1995 budget
and now in effect since April 1, the National Council of Welfare,
which is a federal organization whose role is to give advice to the
Minister of Health, said: ``The main aspect of this financial tool is
that federal funding for all these programs will undergo major
cuts''.
Prevention programs in the health sector will be the first ones to
be cut by the provinces, in an effort to solve their immediate
financial problems. In the long term, this will endanger the health
of Canadians.
All these cuts have already had harmful consequences. It is
estimated that, between 1982 and 1994, Quebec suffered a shortfall
of $8 billion because of underindexing, freezes or cuts affecting
federal contributions. This is a large amount. This shortfall is partly
responsible for the increase in Quebec's debt and income taxes,
since the province refused to reduce its health care budget at the
expense of Quebecers' health.
The proportion of Quebec's health care expenditures paid with
federal transfers went down from 45.9 per cent in 1977-78 to only
33.7 per cent in 1994-95, a 12.2 per cent drop. Even though the
federal withdrawal triggered a tax increase at the provincial level,
the central government still maintained the same taxation level.
According to a study conducted by the C.D. Howe Institute,
while transfer payment expenditures levelled off between 1988 and
1992, spending related to the other federal programs increased by
25.5 per cent. Transfers to the provinces for the health sector thus
absorbed part of the federal deficit. While the federal government
was spending too much, it was telling the provinces to tighten their
belts.
The federal government could have found and still could find the
money it needs for the social programs by eliminating or reducing
its expenditures and closing some tax loopholes. This would make
for a fairer tax system and would help bring in more money to
maintain and improve the services and to reduce the debt.
However, the federal government does not dare to cut the perks
enjoyed by the good friends of the finance minister, the backers of
Liberal party and the family of the Prime Minister.
Based on these figures and on the actions, and not the empty
promises, of the federal government, we have to realize that the
only real threat to the health of Quebecers and Canadians stems
from the irresponsibility shown by the central government.
The 1984 Health Act was passed to ensure that the provinces
affected by the economic recession of the 1980s would not tinker
with the health system, even if, at the same time, the federal
government was reducing transfer payments.
(1300)
All of the provinces protested against this act, because the
Canada Health Act contained new conditions above and beyond
those already in effect. These new added responsibilities contrasted
with the decrease in federal contributions resulting from the 1977
financial arrangements.
On the use of financial pressure tactics, allow me to make a few
polite comments about the blackmail used by the federal
government to force the provinces to totally support the federal
vision. In 1983, Monique Bégin, the Liberal Minister of Health of
the day, cautioned us: ``The total amount of the contributions paid
by the Government of Canada to the provinces for health services
is very significant. Any province that constantly refuses to meet the
conditions will lose the federal cash contribution and will probably
be hard put to compensate for this loss. If the total contribution
were to be withheld, health services in that province could have to
1723
be suspended. This is the last thing the Government of Canada
wants for Canadians. This option could create a situation worse
than the problem it set out to solve''.
What this means is that the confrontation strategy and the will of
the federal government to control the provinces is, in fact, harmful
to the health of the citizens themselves.
The dual initiative by the federal government, that is the creation
of a national forum on health care without consulting the provinces
and the stricter criteria and conditions contained in Bill C-18, has
drawn a lot of criticism not only from the Government of
Quebec-and this may be of interest to the new Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs-but from other provincial
governments as well. He may want to watch this situation closely.
Let us see what the federalists have said about that. On
September 19 of last year, the Conservative health minister of
Ontario, Jim Wilson, criticized the federal government's lack of
flexibility. I would like to apologize to the Speaker for my poor
pronunciation in English, but I will go ahead anyway and do the
best I can. I would add that I am taking courses to improve my
English.
[English]
``I think it shows inflexibility on behalf of the federal
government''.
[Translation]
He also stated that we should not let the federal government
dictate its interpretation of medicare to the provinces.
[English]
``The federal government be fought on principle for dictating its
interpretation of medicare to the provinces''.
[Translation]
The same day, Ralph Klein, Conservative premier of Alberta,
also criticized the federal government's lack of flexibility.
[English]
``Marleau does not send a good signal to Quebec. It says there is no
flexibility within the confederation''.
[Translation]
The NDP health minister of British Columbia, Paul Ramsey,
added that Mrs. Marleau-who held that federal portfolio at the
time-had to change her approach. He stated that if medicare was
threatened by the actions of the provinces, it was because of the $7
billion cuts over two years made by the federal government in the
areas of health, welfare and post-secondary education. I will try
another quotation in English.
[English]
``Last February's federal budget, which cut transfers to provinces
for health, welfare and post-secondary education by $7 billion
dollars over two years, has forced provinces to look at unpalatable
cuts that threaten medicare''.
[Translation]
In a joint communique issued at a health ministers meeting, the
provinces stated that the federal government's will to make
unilateral decisions with regard to the funding of health care, the
interpretation of standards or the setting of arbitrary deadlines for
consultation would not help in solving the problem.
(1305)
[English]
``It is not helpful for the federal government to engage in unilateral
decisions regarding funding or interpretations and arbitrary
deadlines''.
[Translation]
Concluding this section on the forum, it is obvious that reducing
federal contributions causes a serious problem. Federal
intervention was justified only by spending power, so any change
to the federal health legislation without changes to the financial
aspect runs the risk of having an absurd outcome.
Any increased provincial obligation without a corresponding
increased federal contribution is tantamount, not to the exercise of
federal spending power, but rather to the creation of a federal
power to make the provinces spend money for it, and under its
conditions.
In fact, the federal government's main objective is to lessen its
financial burden related to the huge debt it has accumulated, at the
cost of the provinces' fiscal health. In other words, the central
government pushes a portion of its debt off on the provinces. By
thus increasing the tax burden of the provinces, Ottawa lessens
their manoeuvrability and forces them to make difficult, agonizing
choices in its stead.
Because the federal government is not capable of respecting its
commitments and because, all its fine words and the standards it
claims to be setting unilaterally notwithstanding, it is the one
threatening the health system with all these cuts. The federal
government ought to decide to withdraw from the health field, one
in which it ought never to have set foot to begin with. In this case, it
ought to assume responsibility for its decisions and transfer tax
resources to the provinces, in order to allow them to take over.
1724
I have attempted in these past few minutes to establish this
position, which in all aspects reflects the position of the various
governments of Quebec over the years and the constitutional
demands of the Government of Quebec. As I pointed out just now,
since the new government has been in place, I have been a member
of the standing committee on human resources, and in my daily
work on that committee, particularly as the critic for training and
post-secondary education, I have seen the same phenomenon at
work there: an attempt to interfere-more than an attempt,
constant interference, ongoing, and increasing.
Despite the promises of change the Prime Minister made in the
last referendum campaign, when things were getting close and it
looked like the referendum might go to the yes side, in the final
days, he made promises. Before he became prime minister, we
heard him speak for the no committee, stating time and time again
during the referendum campaign that the federal government
should and would agree to change its centralizing attitude so
frequently criticized by Quebecers. We thought there would be a
change. No chance.
Again yesterday, I spoke on Bill C-11, the old C-96, which
dragged on at length and is now being re-introduced. Although
these are old bills in new clothing, there has been no change to the
federal government's centralizing attitude.
An attitude based solely on the government's grasping for
increased powers.
Here is a parallel. We passed a resolution on the distinct society
and what happened? In all of the government's actions, in matters
of health and human resources development the government went
from the notion of distinct society to the simplistic recognition of
Quebec as the principal homeland of French language in North
America.
(1310)
This is a widely known historical fact, but it adds nothing. I am
not the only one to say it. So does the leader of the Liberal Party,
who is a full-fledged partner of the no side and of the present
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. This full-fledged partner
said that this gives nothing more to Quebec since it cannot lead to a
transfer of powers, increased responsibilities, further clarification
nor a greater clarity.
There are some grey areas with regard to the government's
residual powers. We, Quebecers, we, the official opposition, had
hoped to see the federal governement deal with this aspect in its
new effort to decentralize. We had hoped it would clarify matters
and put an end to the remaining grey areas. But on the contrary, it
perpetuates them.
What is worse in the case of the bill making the department of
Human Resources Development official as in this one, is that we
can see that the government has adopted a soft pedal approach, a
go slow approach, a slow combustion approach. You put a little bit
of wood in the stove, you let it smoulder all night, and then you add
a little bit more wood, hoping that Quebec's emotions will simmer
down, that Quebecers and their national feelings will cool down
and, with time, journalists and the media will pay less attention to
the issue, which has been so long on the front page; if there is less
coverage, people will not hear about is as much. This is the soft
pedal approach .
Yesterday I said Bill C-11 was the law of silence. Today being
Friday, I will be kinder. I notice a silence which is probably more
understandable. Yesterday, when the government was passing a bill
to officialize something that has been in existence for two and a
half years, a bill creating the Department of Human Resources
Development, I was explaining that if you exclude the servicing of
the debt, the budget of that department was the largest item in the
total federal budget, with more than 40 per cent of all expenditures.
At the Department of Health, they tried to reduce the figures by
every possible means. When you look at the budget allocated to the
Department of Health this year, you no longer find transfer
payments for health, because they are listed somewhere else.
Therefore, the budget of the department is only $1.8 billion. This is
not much. But most of the spending is elsewhere, in other sections.
For example there is some in the Department of National
Defence. There are many interventions. The federal government is
there, but trying to hide the fact; it would have us believe it is
giving way to the provinces, letting them manage their own
business.
The very last amazing brainwave of the federal government is
the famous Canada social transfer, which has been in existence
since April 1st, although few people know it. What is it? Let us
remind people. The Canada social transfer is a merging of all
federal transfers for health, post-secondary education and welfare.
From now on, provinces will supposedly be able to set their own
priorities. However, all this comes with a $7 billion cut. They are
transferring to the provinces the cuts the federal government did
not dare make. And so they should, in a way, but at the same time,
the federal government is withdrawing from its financial
commitment. And that is unacceptable.
(1315)
The insult-the parliamentary secretary confirmed it this
morning-is to attach to health transfers five principles, five
inescapable conditions with thinly disguised threats. The
government is saying to the provinces: ``If you do not accept
national standards, in the Canadian sense of the word, you may be
penalized by cuts in funds allocated for health or post-secondary
education, but especially health''.
1725
I heard excellent speeches in which it was said: ``The health
of Canadians is a concern to us''. The former minister was
particularly eloquent in the House; every time someone would ask
her a question, she would start by saying: ``Mr. Speaker, you know
I am very concerned with the health of Canadians. That is why
we will intervene here and there''. She was asked why she had
not consulted with the provinces, like she did with the health
forum. She would then answer: ``But you know, the health area
is very important; there are stakeholders in it. We had to know
their views''.
Mr. Speaker, you are signalling me my time is up. I will
conclude with that. I could go on and on. I will have the
opportunity to come back on the matter since I will now sit on the
health committee.
[English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-18. Before I do that, I
would like to respond to some of the comments made by the
member for Eglinton-Lawrence earlier in the debate.
He started by talking about the leadership this government is
providing in dealing with the crisis in health care. I suggest that the
problems we are facing are being magnified. Indeed there is no
leadership. No direction is being provided by the government to
deal with the crisis in health care.
The member was looking back in his speech, talking about the
Fathers of Confederation and the Constitution. Those are just
words to justify the status quo. There were no forward looking
solutions to deal with the problem. Instead there was a look back to
justify the status quo.
The bottom line is that the federal government, while assuming
the role of a minor payer, still wants to be the major player. It is not
in the cards. It is going to change whether members realize it or
not.
As an Ontario MP, as I am, he has to be very aware of the crisis
in our province, the long waiting lists and the bed closures. It is
projected that Ontario will spend $17 billion on health care and that
the federal government will contribute $6 billion toward it. That is
a far cry from the 50:50 cost sharing that allowed the federal
government originally to intrude in what is a provincial
responsibility.
The province of Ontario is looking for assistance. It needs help.
It is not looking for rhetoric. It has a problem and it is looking for
some help from the federal government in dealing with it.
One of the most interesting things that the member said in his
earlier presentation was that the five principles of health care are
debatable but not negotiable. Why in the world would anybody
debate them if there is to be no negotiation? What the government
is saying is: ``My mind is made up. Do not in any way confuse me
with the facts''.
Mr. Johnston: Like the Liberal whip.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): That is right. It is debatable but it
is not negotiable. I seem to recognize that same line in many issues
we are dealing with in the House. Health care is a great example of
the problems we are in: It is debatable but in no way is it
negotiable.
One cannot cover, in our health care system, 100 per cent of the
cost 100 per cent of the time. That never was a reality and it has
never been more true than it is today. The member alluded to our
aging population. It is putting tremendous pressure on a system that
is in dire need of an overhaul. It is not just Ontario that has a health
care crisis. Every province is looking for negotiation, discussion
and flexibility in the role of the federal government, a flexibility
that sadly is not there.
(1320)
This is a housekeeping bill. There are really no monetary
expenditures involved so we have no grounds to oppose it. I should
not say there is no cost. There is always a cost when we debate a
bill in the time it takes to debate it. While there is no reason to
debate the reorganization, there is a very strong reason to discuss
health care. Reorganization is important. Rethinking health care is
critical.
Everyone agrees that we must change, that we have a serious
problem. I paraphrase the Prime Minister when he spoke in an
interview with CBC radio. He said that the system was put in place
to protect Canadian citizens from catastrophic crises in health and
the family so they would not lose their homes. He said very clearly
what we have been saying, that this was never intended to cover
100 per cent of the problems 100 per cent of the time.
He also alluded to the fact that the 10 per cent of GDP spent on
health care is too high. It is the second highest in the world next to
the United States and must be reduced. Those are the words, but
where is the plan to accomplish that? There is nothing. What we
got in the debate this morning were more words and more rhetoric
with no plan to deal with health care.
Medicare is our most valued social program. Part of the rhetoric
from the other side is that we are out to savage and destroy
medicare when the reality is that we are the only party in this House
that is dedicated to saving medicare for those in our country who
need it. It needs support. It needs fresh thinking.
One of the major threats to medicare, indeed to all our social
programs, is Canada's deficit and debt. The overspending that has
taken place over the years has put us into a tremendous debt hole.
That is the real threat to health care.
The finance minister continues day after day when he gets up in
the House to pat himself on the back for reaching 3 per cent of
GDP. He is not eliminating the overspending, he is reducing it. He
1726
will have it reduced to 3 per cent of GDP. We are still living beyond
our means.
In saying that, the finance minister is not telling the Canadian
people what is the real danger to our social programs. While he is
attempting to achieve this very low target, the debt is increasing
from $400 billion to $500 billion to $600 billion in the term of this
government, an increase of some $111 billion. Shame. That is what
is killing health care and the social programs today.
The interest payments are going from $30 billion to $40 billion
to $50 billion to service the debt. That $50 billion does not create
one hospital bed. It does nothing for health care, yet the
government is prepared to see that kind of overspending continue,
to see that kind of debt accumulate and to see that $50 billion go up
in smoke while not creating one job, not doing one thing to save our
social programs. That is the real killer and that is the real threat to
health care.
If we do not change we are in danger of losing medicare. If we do
not start to open up our minds and be prepared to debate and to
negotiate, we will be in danger of losing health care. Those who
only talk are the real threat. Action is required. We do not know
how much time we have to deal with this problem although we
know it is not unlimited.
We want real debate, not cheap shots or rhetoric like ``we are
going to save medicare and there is the heartless group that will
not''. We want to have debate about a real plan, a plan to deal with
the problem we are facing today.
There is a plan we should be talking about which has a
three-pronged approach. The first is the stability of medicare
funding. Funding for medicare needs to be stabilized so the
provinces know where they are at. We have to focus our existing
resources and we have define what the core of our health care is
going to be. We have to offer choices beyond medicare. We have to
face the realities of what is out there today.
(1325)
In affirming medicare and supporting funding stability we must
return to the best health care safety net in the world. We must
remove the existing funding freeze and restore the per capita
transfers to 1992-93 levels which Liberals continue to cut by
stealth. The remaining cash transfers should be converted to tax
points because as far behind as we are falling in the original 50:50
deal, it is going to be even less of a payer in the future.
A better job has to be done in focusing our resources. Canadians
need to define what constitutes core or essential health care
services. There needs to be a debate among the people about what
those core services should be and medicare must be reserved for
those core services.
We should look at the choices and the possibility of choices
beyond medicare, remove the existing restrictions in law which
prohibit choices in basic health care beyond publicly funded health
care. Where medicare does not meet Canadians' needs they should
have the option to exercise choices beyond medicare. Where
Canadians exercise choice beyond medicare they will be
responsible for arranging appropriate private funding on such
choices, for example, with employers through benefit plans with
third party insurance and through private resources.
Let the debate begin on some real solutions to dealing with the
crisis in health care. All of the provinces, not just Ontario, are
looking for that.
In closing, medicare is our most valued social program. I
reinforce the fallacy in saying that only the federal government has
a heart, only the federal government is concerned about saving
health care. It belittles the premiers of the provinces to suggest that
they would in any way be heartless or not be concerned about
health care in their provinces. They will answer to the voters in
their provinces for the job that they do in looking after their people
and not going to the federal government and get into this ``I'm not
at fault, they're at fault'' argument which has brought us to the
point we are at today.
Talk will not do it. There needs to be a plan. Debate must begin
on that plan. We must act now. I believe time is limited. Future
Canadians, our children and our grandchildren, are counting on us
to do that and Canadians deserve nothing less.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall I call it 1.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now
proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed
on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
1726
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.) moved that Bill C-202, an
act respecting a National Organ Donor Day in Canada, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is ant honour for me to rise today to
launch the debate-which I hope will be positive-that will among
other things improve the health and future of many people from
1727
coast to coast, whether they live in Quebec, Ontario, western
Canada or the maritimes.
Bill C-202 would designate a national day to recognize the
importance of organ donation.
[English]
My desire to put forward this private member's bill came as a
result of a very real, very human event that took place in my riding
on April 21, 1994.
A young boy by the name of Stuart Harriott of Whitby, Ontario
was unfortunately involved in an accident with a vehicle. As the
young boy was in the last days and hours of life, his parents, his
aunt and other relatives tried to determine how best to resolve their
terrible grief. The doctors had told them that the young boy would
eventually pass away and he did succumb to his injuries.
Rather than seeing this tragedy for what it was, Linda Rumble
and Stuart Harriott's parents decided that they would begin a
campaign to initiate something that would provide, if there ever is
one in this world, a silver lining to such a tragic event.
At their insistence and the insistence of many organizations I
have had the privilege of speaking to over the past year, we have
before us today an opportunity as Parliament to discuss and
perhaps approve an action Parliament recognizes on a given day,
April 21, the importance and significance that in giving of one's
life we may also give life to others.
The bill is about public education and awareness. Every year in
Canada from coast to coast, 2,500 people need the gift of life.
However, only 300 transplants on average are given. This leaves a
tremendous shortfall.
While many organizations, from the Kidney Foundation to the
Multiple Organ Retrieval Exchange Group, the Canadian
Association of Transplant Patients, the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis
Foundation, the Canadian Liver Foundation, the Heart and Stroke
and Lung Association, to the Canadian Medical Association and
many others work to raise the awareness of Canadians of the need
to sign their donor cards, many may do not enjoy the benefits and
continue to suffer.
The House of Commons has an opportunity to put aside the
traditional debate and often divisiveness that exists and provide for
once an opportunity to allow people who are suffering today the
hope that perhaps down the road they will be able to receive one,
two or several organs. Some of these young children who received
the gift of life from Stuart Herriott will also be able to enjoy their
future.
Perhaps this is more important because it is not just that it affects
and sounds like it is one of those motherhood issues. I think each of
us in the House knows of constituents and families afflicted and
affected by a debilitating disease or by accidents or by trauma.
I was very surprised to learn that one of our former clerks who
worked on many committees for years, a well known individual,
G.A. Sandy Birch, is a recipient of a heart. I a saw him recently at a
function held in Ottawa where 35 other individuals had been given
the gift of life, many of them with our colleague in the other place
presiding at the transplant, the hon. Dr. Keon.
I was quite impressed to see how important and how close to
home such examples of transplants can be in our own
neighbourhoods.
I believe the public awareness and education programs such a
bill would bring about would address very firmly some of the
misapprehensions individuals have about transplants. Some will be
concerned from a religious point of view, and I will address that.
Much of this is based on what some would consider simply
confusion or ignorance surrounding the religious impact on the
issue of organ donation. It may surprise many colleagues to learn
that virtually every major religion in the world permits, and some
actually encourage, organ donation and transplants.
Hindus are not prohibited by religious law from donating organs.
Muslims support organ transplants and donations as long as they
are done with respect for the deceased and for the benefit of the
recipient. Judaism teaches that saving a human life takes
precedence over maintaining the sanctity of the human body in
terms of organ donation. Direct transplantation is therefore
preferred.
In Christianity, Protestants respect individual conscience and an
person's right to make decisions about their body and that
resurrection does not require making the physical body whole
again. Catholics view organ donation as an act of charity, fraternal
love and self-sacrifice.
Some are also equally concerned about the question of safety.
The importance of ensuring the safety of organ transplantation is of
paramount and absolute concern. Research is being conducted
examining the issue of reducing the risk of a recipient's contracting
diseases such as hepatitis B and C and HIV from transplants.
(1335 )
In October 1995 the national consensus conference on the safety
of organs and tissues for transplantation brought together a broad
range of experts in the field of transplantation. The conference was
successful in achieving a consensus on accepting in principle a
Canadian general standard on safety of organs and tissues for
transplantation. At the same time a risk management regulatory
framework was proposed.
I am confident that more attention and study will be given to the
issue of improving the safety of organ transplants.
1728
In the intervening period since I introduced this bill under a
different name in the previous session I have received a lot of
correspondence from members of Parliament from across this
great land.
Support for Linda Rumble and her initiatives have been received
from many members, including the members for Saint John,
Peterborough, Winnipeg North, London East, Vancouver Centre
and Saskatoon-Humboldt.
Mr. Speaker, while we agree to the need for a day when we can
pay respect to the individuals who have given life, perhaps some
time down the road your good Chair and office might permit an
honour role to recognize every year those who in laying down their
lives have actually provided hope for many others.
It is my belief this bill does what other organizations cannot do
individually. They cannot draw the attention of all Canadian people
to sign their donor cards and to address the inhibitions of organ
donation, for it is not something which should be done with
trepidation, but with honour. When we pass on from this great
planet, it is my belief there are opportunities for us to know that
some of us will live in the lives of others.
I was also touched by some of the more immediate examples of
what organ donation has done for many people, even among
families. Glenn DeMille is a well know heart transplant recipient
who helped to organize many events in the Ottawa region to draw
attention to, at least from a local perspective, the need for organ
donation.
Mr. DeMille received a heart transplant several years ago.
However, most people do not know it is his son's heart which lives
within him. Glenn DeMille did not know his son had signed a
donor card. After his operation he was informed of the transplant.
Mr. DeMille smiles because he feels like and has the energy of a
25-year old. Mr. DeMille will continue to be a driving force locally.
Perhaps we need a national force in which the division which
often appears in the House of Commons and in committees is put
aside for one day and parties will actually say there are some issues
which transcend partisan considerations.
I am submitting today that Parliament can do what individual
organizations cannot do. While it is true some groups and
organizations designate weeks in which they recognize specific
causes on a regional, local or provincial basis, we have never been
able to pinpoint a specific day. In my view it should be April 21.
[Translation]
I ask this House to give my bill serious consideration and to
support its implementation so that present and future generations
can receive the gift of life.
[English]
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland): Mr. Speaker, a point of
order, I simply want to confirm to the House that next Tuesday will
be an allotted day.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): I am
pleased to participate in this debate today, Mr. Speaker, on the bill
put forward by the hon. member for Ontario, a bill designating
April 21 National Organ Donor Day.
I will start with a real life story. The story is set in Montreal's
Sainte-Justine hospital. The year is 1959. It feels almost like
yesterday. I was about to graduate from nursing school. Pierrette
was a patient of mine. She was 14 years old and had been suffering
from kidney failure for several years. Thirty years ago,
haemodialysis and kidney transplants were still in the realm of
science fiction. All this to say that Pierrette was dying. All she
wanted was to sleep through the night but, one night, she went to
sleep never to wake up again.
(1340)
In those days, cases like Pierrette's were hopeless and therefore
went untreated. The feeling of helplessness was extremely
frustrating for all of us. Why her and not me? Science has made
giant strides since. Over the course of almost 30 years of
professional activity entirely dedicated to paediatric care, I finally
saw hope rekindled in the hearts and minds of parents and
caregivers.
Today, increasingly sophisticated technologies make heart, liver,
lung and pancreas transplants possible. What was a virtually
impossible feat in 1960 has become, today more than ever, a
challenge to take on.
In 1995, in Quebec alone, 375 persons received the invaluable
gift of life because 117 healthy people like you and me agreed to
give the gift of life after their own life was over. There are
nevertheless more than 500 Quebecers who are still waiting for a
transplant and, across Canada, only 40 per cent of those who need a
transplant actually undergo the operation. Scientific progress
notwithstanding, the biggest problem remains the insufficient
supply of organs to meet the demand.
According to Québec-Transplant, one of the factors contributing
to this shortage is undoubtedly the fact that only an infinitely small
number of possible donors meet the requirements for organ
donation. In 1995, among the many donors referred, only 117 could
be used to meet part of the transplant needs. So, if there are more
donors, there will also be more people who will benefit from a long
awaited organ transplant that will improve their quality of life.
This is why this bill is so important. One way to increase the
number of donors is to run public awareness campaigns on the
importance of organ donation. In that field, the most sophisticated
1729
technologies are useless if people refuse or forget to give the gift of
life.
Instituting a national organ donor day would help organizations
such as Québec-Transplant and the Canadian association of organ
donors to intensify their campaigns to recruit organ donors and to
stress the importance of volunteer work in that sector.
This issue is very dear to me, partly because for four years now,
Laval, which is the second largest city in Quebec and which is were
my riding is located, has been running a campaign in April to
recruit organ donors. I am proud to participate in that event as
honourary copresident. I can see the positive impact of such a
campaign in terms of encouraging people to pledge to donate
organs, but also on the volunteers working in that sector. The organ
donor month in Laval also provides an opportunity for various
interested parties, including volunteers, medical teams and
organizations, to consult each other to promote organ donation.
Police officers are a good example. I would like to take this
opportunity to express my deep appreciation to police officers in
Laval, who are serving this cause by transporting organs and thus
contribute to saving many lives. Since 1993, about 50 police
officers have been called upon 325 times and have travelled over
39,000 kilometres to transport donor organs.
But the main goal is public awareness, so that people will sign
they donor card and talk about it with their relatives and friends.
(1345)
Organ donation is a sign of solidarity with people who need an
organ transplant to stay alive or get a better quality of life. It can
also give a meaning to death, because it is a gift of life.
Only through sharing and generosity can we solve the shortage
of organs for transplants. Sooner or later, we all have to come to
grips with the reality of death, our own or that of a loved one. The
loss of our loved ones is always a cause for grief, but organ
donation is a gift of life that can bring hope and peace.
However, some elements like the lack of knowledge about the
organ shortage or the emotional drive to keep the body of the
deceased intact all hinder an increase in transplants and make it
crucial, at least for the people waiting for a transplant, that
information and awareness campaigns be launched.
This is why I intend to submit to the health committee an
amendment to Bill C-202, asking Parliament to recognize April as
organ donor month, as is the tradition in Laval.
I think that, because of the extent of the organ shortage and the
importance of this issue, we need to set aside a whole month to
educate the public. Health is not only about science and
technology. It is also a question of awareness and reflection and
caring. Since life gives us all kinds of opportunities, I think we
should also give life a chance.
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-202 which seeks to
designate every April 21 as national organ donation day.
Oftentimes we are reminded there are only two certainties in this
life, death and taxes. We can count on this government to ensure
that we pay more than our fair share of taxes and at the same time
we have learned that we can postpone death. While we cannot put it
off indefinitely, it is possible to postpone it.
Advances in medical technology have allowed some people to
do just exactly that through organ transplant surgery. It has given
Canadians from all walks of life from all across the country a
second chance at life.
Organ donation operations are no longer an experimental
procedure. They have become so successful that the number of
people on waiting lists in Canada far exceeds the supply of
available organs. I commend my friend from Ontario for
introducing this bill. It increases the awareness of this problem in
Canada. As has been pointed out by my colleague from the Bloc, it
is to give the gift of life even though the person is no longer there to
see that gift being given.
Since organ transplants began in Canada, some 18,000
operations have been performed. In 1984 there were 500 transplant
operations while 10 years later in 1994 over 1,400 such operations
took place. That is the good news. The not so good news is that in
1992 there were over 2,000 people on lists waiting to receive
organs and by 1995 the number had grown to 2,600.
As members of Parliament we should take the initiative to
promote the benefits of organ donation. There are common
misconceptions with regard to organ donation which I think we
have a duty to dispel.
For instance, there are those who believe it does little to save
lives and restore health but the facts indicate the contrary. Organ
donation is a proven life saver with success rates ranging from 85
to 95 per cent. That is a pretty good gamble for somebody who
requires a kidney. It is not what one would call routine surgery but
it is certainly not experimental either.
(1350)
Another common misconception is that organ donations and
transplants are a financial burden on health care, that they are
costly. Organ donations and transplant operations not only save
lives but they save dollars as well. The issue of health care dollars,
as was evidenced by our previous debate, certainly is a timely topic
1730
at the moment. Health care dollars are becoming more and more
scarce all the time.
As an example, for those suffering from kidney disease, a
transplant operation would cost in the neighbourhood of $20,000
plus about $5,000 a year for follow-up treatment, whereas renal or
kidney dialysis for the same person would cost around $50,000 a
year. Coupled with that, if the person has a functioning kidney their
quality of life and their productivity is certainly a lot better than it
would be if they had to rely on a kidney dialysis machine.
Another reason I encourage members to support this bill is that it
will increase public awareness. The government will have to get
the public thinking about organ donation if the gap between
availability and demand is to be filled.
One of the biggest obstacles is the lack of communication
between family members. Not that I want to do a commercial for
Mutual Life Assurance Company of Canada but it did conduct a
survey which found that only about half of Canadian families have
ever discussed the issue and the circumstances surrounding organ
donation. That is to say that only about half of them even discussed
the matter and very few of those actually took the action of filling
out a donor card, which is the first step.
Even though an individual may have signed the donor card, the
family of a person who has just expired may express concerns and
objections about the donation of a loved one's organs. As a matter
of professional practice, the doctor will defer to the family's
expressed concern. The result is that the organs will not be donated.
They will not be used to benefit a waiting recipient.
One solution to this quandary is to have both spouses, the
guardians or people who are indicated as next of kin in the event of
death sign the organ donation card so that there will be agreement
on whether or not the organs are to be donated. This will increase
the timeliness and of course with organ donations timeliness is very
important.
Perhaps there is a need for a national registry of potential organ
donors. In case of fatal traffic accidents for instance, the personal
effects including the driver's licence may be separated from the
victim. If a person has filled out the organ donor card on the back of
their licence, it does not really solve the problem if the driver's
licence is in one place and the body is in another. Often too much
time elapses before this is realized and by that time the organs may
not be suitable for donation.
Another option is to have prospective organ donors registered
with the Canadian Police Information Centre. There is access to the
Canadian Police Information Centre all day every day. It is
registered across the country. All that is needed is the authorization
of the solicitor general and the police authorities in order to carry
out this step.
(1355 )
Such measures would address waiting lists which continue to
grow and lives that are needlessly lost as a result. In 1995 alone
1,114 Canadians died because they had not received a suitable
organ for transplantation, an organ that would have restored their
health.
I was astonished to learn that Canada has one of the lowest organ
donation rates in the world. In Canada there are only 14 donors per
million whereas in other countries the average ratio is between 20
and 30 donors per million. There is a lot of work to be done. As I
have said before, that is the goal of my colleague from Ontario who
would like to raise awareness of this problem and increase those
numbers to make available more and more organs for donation.
Earlier I mentioned new initiatives the government should
consider. In the interim Canadians should be made aware that they
can do more than sign their driver's licences and register as donors.
Mutual Life Assurance Company of Canada sponsored an organ
donation campaign called ``By Mutual Consent: Breaking Barriers
to Organ Donation''. A number of non-profit organizations such as
the British Columbia Transplant Society, the Kidney Foundation of
Canada, the Canadian Transplant Society, Organ Donors Canada in
Alberta and the Canadian Association of Transplantation are active
in promoting and co-ordinating organ donation efforts.
Bill C-202 is an example of an effort to do more. It is a
reasonable and worthy initiative which could complement other
efforts designed to motivate people to give the gift of life. Along
with national donor week which we celebrate at this time each year,
which apparently is not exactly a national donor week but an
Ontario donor week, the member for Ontario's initiative would
promote and encourage discussion on the issue surrounding organ
donation.
Reformers are pleased to support this bill as it would contribute
to efforts to address this need proactively. In doing so it would save
lives and improve the health and the quality of life of many
Canadians. It would conserve precious health care dollars and
encourage the public's awareness and discussion. I urge all
members to support the bill, consider the issue themselves and
discuss it in their constituencies.
After all, healthy Canadians are more productive Canadians. We
are very concerned about the quality of life in Canada. If we as
individuals or as a group want to ensure people will not be on
waiting lists for organ donation transplants, we should be proactive
in our approach.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a part of this debate.
I compliment my colleague from Ontario riding for making not
1731
only a very persuasive and compelling dissertation but one that was
moving as well.
It is most unfortunate we have to make reference to such
personal tragedies as that suffered by the Rumble family. We will
try to take a positive view, as my colleague from Ontario did, and
say that perhaps from one human tragedy we can do something that
is worthwhile for the rest of us.
On the question of transplants and organ donations, the House
may be aware that the kidney transplant is the oldest of the solid
organ transplant procedures. The first successful kidney transplant
between identical twins in Boston in 1954 ushered in the new era of
transplantation.
Improved surgical techniques and new drugs to fight rejection
enabled Montreal surgeons to transplant kidneys between unrelated
persons in 1963. I mention this because I would hope that all those
who are interested in the issue, not only from the political realm but
also in society as a whole, would keep an appreciation of the
activity of Health Canada and all Canadians working in this area.
(1400 )
This first transplant was followed in 1967 by a heart transplant
performed by Dr. Christiaan Barnard of South Africa. A year later,
in 1968, the first heart transplant was performed at the Montreal
Heart Institute.
The use of the anti-rejection drug cyclosporin in the 1980s
greatly improved the success of transplantation and contributed
significantly to the growth of this procedure. Today transplantation
of both organs and tissues has become an important part of health
care and has contributed to improving the life expectancy and
quality of life of thousands of Canadians.
One of the key barriers to transplantation remains the
availability of suitable donor organs and tissues, as other speakers
have noted. In fact, about 2,200 Canadians are currently waiting to
receive an organ transplant. Waiting times vary depending on the
specific organ and tissue required for a transplant.
The overall rate of organ donation in Canada is regrettably low:
about 14.7 per million population as of 1994. Yet that represents
roughly a 20 per cent increase from the 12.1 per million population
in 1992.
Still, by international standards, as others have indicated,
Canada could and should do better. While our rates are comparable
to those of Australia, the United States has a donation rate which is
about 50 per cent higher and Austria's rate is double that of
Canada's.
According to a 1994 public opinion survey conducted by the
Angus Reid group, 77 per cent of Canadians indicated a willingness
to donate organs. Unfortunately, only 58 per cent reported having
signed a donor card. Still this did represent an increase over the
1993 and 1992 levels, which were 56 per cent and 53 per cent
respectively.
There is a considerable opportunity gap between those
expressing a willingness and those who actually act on that
willingness. However, what is very encouraging is that of those
who had not signed a donor card, 54 per cent indicated they would
do so if offered the chance and the opportunity to so sign.
That survey, by the way, pointed out some misconceptions about
organ donations which may be impeding behaviour in this regard. I
will cite a few examples.
Forty-three per cent of Canadians reported assuming that only
those in excellent health would be able to donate. Thirty-eight per
cent thought that organ transplants were more costly than keeping a
patient alive through other means, such as kidney dialysis or drug
therapy. Twenty-eight per cent thought that the organ donation
would result in changes to funeral arrangements. Seventeen per
cent thought that organ transplantation was not the most effective
medical treatment for organ failure.
Despite these misconceptions, concerted efforts are and have
been under way for some time in Canada to improve the public's
awareness of and willingness to become organ donors. Among
those taking a leadership role in this regard have been national and
non-governmental organizations, such as the Kidney Foundation,
as my colleague from Ontario pointed out, the Heart and Stroke
Foundation, the Liver Foundation, the Lung Association and the
Cystic Fibrosis Association. In addition, several national
associations, including the Canadian Medical Association and the
Canadian Nurses Association, promote organ and tissue donor
awareness through their professional journals.
These and other national organizations, including Health
Canada, are members of the Canadian Coalition for Organ Donor
Awareness, also known as CCODA.
Together, national and provincial governments and
non-government organizations currently organize various public
awareness and education seminars during national organ donor
awareness week, which is the last full week of April.
My colleagues on both sides of the House have rightly pointed
out that so far there has not been the rate of donation that we could
expect to make such programs completely successful. That having
been said, local hospitals and community groups have organized
campaigns to heighten understanding and awareness of the
importance of organ donation. If the House will permit, I will take
the opportunity to give an indication of one such organization in the
immediate vicinity.
1732
(1405 )
The Ottawa-Carleton chapter of the Canadian Liver Foundation
will host its seventh annual celebration of life service in
appreciation of organ donors and their families this Sunday, April
21, at Christ Church Cathedral on Sparks Street. One should note
that the church is wheelchair accessible from Queen Street. All are
welcome.
It is organizations like this, activities like this, that give us a
better appreciation of needs everywhere.
Within Canada the public and stakeholders in the organ donation
programs have accepted the need for specific focus each year on
efforts to promote public education about organ donation. This is
an important health care issue for all Canadians and one that many
national and provincial organizations are actively pursuing. It is
one that Health Canada has been pursuing for a long time. We will
continue to pursue it with the support of colleagues on both sides of
the House and from organizations, provincial, municipal and
non-governmental, everywhere throughout the land.
I thank the House for its attention on this most worthwhile topic.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to speak on private member's bill C-202, an act respecting national
organ donor day in Canada.
I would like to thank the hon. member for Ontario riding for
bringing this private member's bill to the House. I believe it is a
very worthwhile bill for several reasons.
First, there is merit in having recognition of something as
important as donating an organ. The public becomes more aware of
the issue, of the shortage of organs and of the long lists of people
who are waiting to receive an organ so they can have their life
improved or prolonged. Therefore I would like to congratulate the
hon. member for Ontario for bringing this motion forward.
Any kind of media attention that can be brought to an issue like
this will help. I seldom would wish this for a Liberal member of
Parliament, but I wish him all kinds of extremely positive coverage
on this issue. It can only help to make people aware. Perhaps it will
encourage some people within their families to talk about the
possibility of organ donation should one of them die prematurely.
As I was coming here on the little green bus from the
Confederation Building I was thinking about how I would feel. I
have five children, three boys and two girls. I have identical twin
sons and also a twin son and daughter. The identical twin sons came
to mind. If they were, God forbid, in a serious car accident-they
are 17 years old so I cannot help thinking about that possibility-if
they were both critically injured and one of them died and could
through donating an organ prolong the life of the other, I could not
help thinking what a terrible loss it would be if the arrangements
had not been made so that the people who arrived on the scene did
not know immediately that the intent was that my sons wanted this
to happen.
As well, I could not help thinking of the good feeling and
possibly the way that this could make it a little easier to suffer
through the loss of this child, knowing that a part of this child who
had died could remain alive in the life of the other.
Therefore, I congratulate the hon. member opposite for bringing
this motion forward. I wish him all the media attention that he can
get on this. Any kind of education and awareness that we can help
promote on this issue is extremely valuable and will save lives.
(1410 )
While I congratulate the member for bringing this bill forward, I
do not think it is enough. What we should do in the House is
actually draft a bill that will in a far more substantive way allow,
provide for and encourage more people to donate organs so that
there is not this long waiting list we have in Canada now.
It is important on an issue like this, if we are to debate it in the
House, that it be done in a non-partisan way. I am talking about a
bill which will become law and which will provide for a much
better organ donation system than we have now. It is important for
that to be done in a non-partisan way.
In legislation the Liberal government brought forward in 1994
there were some changes made to chapter IX of the standing orders.
One change allows the government to put a bill before committee
before second reading. This legislation has been used. A change to
Standing Order 68(4)(b), a provision which has not yet been used,
allows a private member's motion to be put before committee
before second reading so that legislation can actually be drafted by
committee.
I am in the process right now of presenting a private member's
motion to Journals which will ask the House to send a motion
dealing with organ donations to committee before second reading
so that the appropriate parliamentary committee can actually draft
the legislation, which will help take some of the partisanship out of
the process. This will enable the committee to draft the legislation
which will help in a very substantive way to make the organs
needed readily available.
I will read this section of the standing orders:
A motion by a private member to appoint or instruct a standing, special or
legislative committee to prepare and bring in a bill, pursuant to section (1) of this
standing order, shall be considered as a motion under Private Members' Business
and shall be subject to the procedures in that regard set down in Standing Orders 86
to 99, inclusive. A motion by a member other than a minister of the crown to concur
in the report of a committee pursuant to this section or to section 4(a) of this
1733
standing order shall also be taken up as a motion under Private Members' Business
pursuant to the aforementioned standing orders in that regard.
This section will allow this process. I hope my private member's
motion, should it come before the House, will add something even
more substantive to the bill presented by the hon. member for
Ontario. I am in the process of presenting this motion to Journals. I
hope it will be unanimously supported when it comes to the House.
I will shorten my comments because many people before me
have talked about statistics and have expressed very well the need
for an improvement in the mechanism. They have talked about the
long waiting lists. They have talked about people who have died
waiting for an organ donation. I believe all of us know someone
who has died unnecessarily because organs were not available.
(1415 )
I have 295 organ donor cards which have been provided by the
Kidney Foundation of Canada. I ask for unanimous consent of the
House to have these organ donor cards transferred to the table so
that all members of Parliament can show by example the
importance of everyone who is willing to sign an organ donation
card. In that way the list of people waiting for organs will be
shortened substantially and fewer people will while die waiting for
organs.
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, is there unanimous consent
to allow the member to do as proposed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: So ordered. The cards will be transferred
to the table.
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this
important issue. I thank my hon. colleague for bringing this
important issue forward in the House of Commons.
Organ donation and transplantation is an essential part of health
care in Canada. While there have been improvements in the rates of
organ donation in Canada, we still lag behind other industrialized
countries including Austria, Spain, Belgium, the United States and
France.
Health professionals are keenly aware of the importance of organ
transplantation both to save lives and often to reduce ongoing
expensive treatment costs. Nevertheless, converting potential
donors into actual donors is a difficult issue for many
professionals. In some cases medical and surgical residents have
difficulty in identifying potential donors. As well, a recent
Canadian study indicated that only 35 per cent of nurses and 55.4
per cent of physicians knew how to refer organ donors.
An important issue for physicians and nurses is the difficulty and
stress of discussing organ donation with family members. In the
same Canadian study it was noted that 83 per cent of nurses and 75
per cent of physicians reported reluctance in approaching relatives
of potential organ donors. Professional attitudes toward organ
donation however are generally positive.
Co-operation from health care professionals does not require
more education but rather more emphasis on the social and
interpersonal issues. At the same time more efforts with regard to
professional knowledge and involvement would no doubt be very
helpful.
It is interesting to note that consent to organ donation among
health professionals themselves does not rank much higher than
among the general population. As a matter of interest, I, as a past
health professional for 30 years have made the commitment to
organ donation.
In 1994 a survey of physicians and nurses found that over 90 per
cent of the nurses and 95 per cent of the physicians supported organ
donation in principle. However only 61 per cent of the nurses and
63 per cent of physicians had completed a donor card. This
compares to a 1994 public opinion survey which indicated that 58
per cent of Canadians surveyed reported having signed an organ
donor card.
Further many Canadians do not discuss their personal views and
intentions in this regard with their family members. This is a shame
because in 1994 only 63 per cent of Canadians reported ever having
discussed organ donation with a family member and 51 per cent
indicated that they did not know what the wishes of their family
members were with respect to organ donations. This adds to the
difficulty experienced by health professionals in approaching
family members and potential organ donors. Not only is it
emotionally stressful to approach the subject but often family
members are left in a quandary of simply not knowing whether
their loved ones would want them to consent to organ donation.
Furthermore many Canadians know little about the actual
process of organ donation. For example, 43 per cent still think only
those in excellent health could do this. A few Canadians report fear,
mistrust or uncertainty about the extraction process and 13 per cent
fear AIDS or other infections. Moreover the study showed that 16
per cent of those not willing to donate expressed fear of maybe not
receiving the best medical care by signing one of the cards.
Also, there may be few incentives for hospitals to become
involved in organ and tissue procurement. In many provinces no
funding is offered to hospitals for this procurement and hospitals
must commit their own funds and resources to maintain potential
donors until the organs can be recovered. The lack of financial
compensation for physicians and the amount of time their
involvement requires may also be further barriers.
Cultural barriers as well may be an issue here. And there may be
an increasing number of important and difficult ethical issues
1734
regarding the sanctity of the human body, including the extent to
which medical technology should be used to delay death.
Thus public awareness and education while extremely important
is only one dimension associated with improving organ donation in
Canada. Several national and provincial governments and
non-governmental organizations are already undertaking a variety
of efforts to improve the level of knowledge of Canadians and of
health professionals on various aspects of this issue.
Federal and provincial ministers of health are currently assessing
the problems and barriers and we need to work with them. The
ultimate goal of course is to promote a more concerted, collective
effort in order to improve overall organ donation rates and enhance
our ability to respond to the needs of Canadians.
All members of Parliament and the government have a
responsibility in this. In closing I thank my hon. colleague for
bringing this subject to the floor of the House of Commons. I wish
it every success.
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.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly,
the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Health.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.
The Deputy Speaker: The House stands adjourned until
Monday, April 22 at 11 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 2.24 p.m.)