CONTENTS
Monday, April 22, 1996
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 1735
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 1741
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.49 a.m.) 1742
The House resumed at 12 p.m. 1742
Bill C-18. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading 1742
Mr. Harper (Churchill) 1759
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 1759
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 1760
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 1761
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1764
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1764
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1764
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1764
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1765
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1765
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1765
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1766
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1767
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 1767
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 1767
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1768
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1768
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 1769
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1769
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1770
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 1770
Bill C-29. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted 1774
(Bill deemed concurred in at report stagewith amendments) 1774
Bill C-30. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted 1774
Bill deemed read the second time, considered bycommittee and
reported without amendment 1774
Motion for concurrence in 14th report 1774
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 1775
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 1775
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 1775
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 1775
Bill C-18. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading 1776
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 1788
Division on motion deferred 1791
Bill C-19. Motion for third reading 1791
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 1793
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 1796
1735
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, April 22, 1996
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ)
moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should amend its
Direction to the CRTC (Eligible Canadian Corporations) in order to authorize
the CRTC to grant Québec-Téléphone a broadcasting license under the
Broadcasting Act, so as to permit competition in distributing broadcasting
signals in the territory served by Québec-Téléphone.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today in this House to
debate a motion I tabled with respect to Québec-Téléphone, whose
head office is located in the city of Rimouski, regional capital of
the Lower St. Lawrence administrative region in Quebec.
Motion M-102 reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should amend its
Direction to the CRTC (Eligible Canadian Corporations) in order to authorize
the CRTC to grant Québec-Téléphone a broadcasting license under the
Broadcasting Act, so as to permit competition in distributing broadcasting
signals in the territory served by Québec-Téléphone.
For the benefit of our listeners, I should explain that the
government's direction to the CRTC on eligible Canadian
corporations allows the CRTC to set the requirements for
recognizing a company as Canadian.
Pursuant to Standing Order 86(3), this motion was formally
seconded by four of my colleagues when it was moved at the
beginning of this second session: two from the Bloc Quebecois, the
hon. member for Portneuf and the one for Charlevoix, the
independent member for Beauce, and the NDP member for
Burnaby-Kingsway, a riding in British Columbia.
I think it is important to understand what led to the tabling of this
motion. First of all, the CRTC and the advisory council on the
information highway recommended that the Minister of Canadian
Heritage and the Minister of Industry maintain Canadian
ownership requirements for broadcasting businesses and that the
grandfather protection already enjoyed by Québec-Téléphone
under the Telecommunications Act not be granted to it in this
sector, thus preventing Québec-Téléphone from entering the world
of convergence and competition.
Second, Québec-Téléphone then decided to step in to defend its
rights and to do everything it could to survive as a corporation,
which led to two concrete actions. It started by lobbying to have its
case heard. The company had to define, present and clearly explain
its situation so that government officials could seek and find a
solution without compromising Canada's cultural sovereignty.
It also had to set up a survival committee composed of managers
and unionized employees to promote public awareness of the
company's future prospects: either to stagnate and perhaps go into
decline or disappear as an autonomous entity, or else to prosper by
entering the world of convergence in order to obtain a broadcasting
license.
(1105)
Third, once these decisions had been made, they then had to be
implemented. The committee for the survival of
Québec-Téléphone circulated a petition, which was signed by
94,253 people residing on the territory served by
Québec-Telephone, a territory stretching from Rimouski to Gaspé,
over to the Lower North Shore, from Baie-Comeau to
Lourdes-de-Blanc-Sablon, to Montmagny, the Beauce region and
finally Donnacona.
This petition, most of which has been tabled in this House, urged
the government to grant Québec-Téléphone an extension of the
grandfather clause whereby it could be issued a broadcasting
licence by the CRTC.
In addition, of course, the senior managers of the company
lobbied their member of Parliament and a number of government
members, as is normal and necessary, to state their concerns, so
that the whole situation would be clear and that an appropriate
solution could be devised that would satisfy all those concerned.
It is as part of this effort that I tabled a motion before this House,
to make the whole issue transparent. There is a solution that would
allow Québec-Telephone to take its place in the field of
convergence and to be competitive. But it is a political solution;
therefore,
1736
the fact that the matter is raised in political terms should not come
as a surprise.
Based to a large extent on a brief submitted by
Québec-Téléphone, I would now like to give a brief historical
outline of this company, which is part of the everyday lives of
many Quebecers and was the largest telecommunications carrier
under Quebec jurisdiction until the Supreme Court of Canada
decided otherwise in its April 26, 1994 ruling.
The origin of the Québec-Téléphone company we know today
dates back to 1898. This was the year when Dr. Ferdinand Demers
founded the Métis telephone company. But it was not until July 7,
1927 that the company was officially incorporated, under the name
of Corporation de téléphone de valeurs d'utilités publiques de
Québec. A vigorous company from the beginning, it eventually
integrated most of the province's telephone networks.
Québec-Téléphone's true founder was the Hon. Jules A. Brillant,
who bought the Compagnie de téléphone nationale in 1927. Twenty
years later, the company received supplementary letters patent and
became known as the Corporation de téléphone de Québec. On
February 10, 1955, through a special act, Quebec's Parliament gave
the company the power to expropriate, along with the name
Québec-Téléphone.
The company then had to modernize its operations and look for
considerable capital input, which was indispensable if it was to
develop its communications infrastructure. In 1966, the Brillant
family sold its Québec-Téléphone shares and, on July 21, the
Anglo-Canadian Telephone Company, a subsidy of GTE
Corporation-General Telephone and Electronics-, whose head
office is located in Connecticut, became controlling shareholder of
Québec-Téléphone with 50.4 per cent of the shares.
It is interesting to note that, in spite of this association with an
American multinational, the company presidents, namely Messrs.
Bénéteau, Sirois and Laroche, have always been from the region
and have worked their way up within the company.
Mr. Bénéteau was president from 1967 to 1974. During that
period, the company's growth was characterized by technological
excellence and emphasis on network automation, while also giving
priority to the development of telephone services in the middle and
lower North Shore regions. The construction program to provide
the north shore of the St. Lawrence with communications
infrastructures was very ambitious, but the company was
convinced that it would prove a powerful development tool for
these regions, which were not industrialized, as yet.
By the end of 1968, the 2,085 miles of Québec-Téléphone's
microwave network made it the largest one in Quebec while also
ensuring communications with western Labrador and the island of
Newfoundland.
On September 1, 1974, Raymond Sirois took over from Mr.
Bénéteau and a true era of change started for Québec-Téléphone.
The company was always at the forefront of change. On October
14, 1975, it started a convergence experiment, bought the
infrastructure of Cablovision Bas-Saint-Laurent Ltée, and pledged
to serve subscribers from Matane and the Matapedia Valley. In
Rimouski, its suburbs, and Mont-Joli, Québec-Téléphone worked
with Câblodistribution de l'Est. To comply with a Supreme Court
ruling, it was forced to stop its involvement with cable television
infrastructures.
(1110)
Rapid changes in telecommunications did not prevent the
company from quickly adapting to an increasingly competitive
environment. As early as 1981, the company started digitizing its
telephone system by using fibre optics in the long distance system.
Québec-Téléphone was the first company in Canada to offer all
its clients private lines in 1991, and touch tone lines in 1993. In that
year, the company also finished converting its switching and long
distance transmission facilities to fibre optics, thus taking the lead
in electronic highway development.
On February 1, 1992, Gilles Laroche became president of the
company, and his arrival signalled the beginning of the age of
partnerships. The company joined the Stentor network, thus
becoming a Telesat shareholder. By adding a satellite component to
its services, Québec-Téléphone could contemplate efficient and
economical solutions to serving remote and not very accessible
areas in its wide territory.
Québec-Téléphone must continue to work to ensure its clients
have equal access to services at a reasonable cost. Thus, in
September 1995, through a subsidiary, the company introduced the
Internet under its GLOBE TROTTER trademark.
In summary, to conclude this historical overview, I would like to
quote at length from the brief prepared by Québec-Téléphone:
``The history of Québec-Téléphone is simply and above all the
history of the builders and developers of a region which is arid in
appearance but rich in a commitment and a will to succeed
collectively in being and remaining a company whose heart beats
to the rhythm of the life of the people representing it and pushing it
to achieve excellency''.
Let us now briefly turn to the operating environment of
Québec-Téléphone. This company serves a 272,000 square
kilometre territory, which forms 40 per cent of Quebec's populated
area. This territory is spread over three distinct administrative
regions: Quebec, the Lower St. Lawrence and the North Shore.
Within the territor assigned to Québec-Téléphone, the company
serves a
1737
total of 309 municipalities; 300 of them have a population of less
than 10,000, and 168 one of less than 1,000. Only one, Rimouski,
has a population of more than 35,000. On the whole, 54 per cent of
the population served by Québec-Téléphone can be considered
rural.
According to the 1991 census, Québec-Téléphone provides its
telecommunications services to 550,400 people. Expressed as a
number of inhabitants per square kilometre, this translates as a
population density of 2.2 people per square kilometre. This
population, living in a vast but sparsely populated area, is
characterized, in demographic terms, by evolution, aging and
particular needs.
Indeed, between 1981 and 1991, the number of households
increases as much in the territory served by Québec-Téléphone as
in Quebec and Canada, the increase being 1.8 per cent compared to
2.2 per cent for Quebec and Canada resppectively. The population
served by Québec-Téléphone is aging more rapidly, because the
young are drained toward big cities outside the territory served by
this company. Finally, it is impossible to ignore certain general
needs of this population, such as maintaining its living standard,
improving the quality and efficiency of public services,
maintaining vital relations with big cities, and improving the
transportation system to guarantee a better access. In short, this
population wants to break free from the isolation that comes with
living in remote areas.
Despite the context it has to cope with, Québec-Téléphone has,
through its presence and involvement in the regions, a great
regional economic impact. First of all, it is the most important
private sector employer in Rimouski, and over half its 1,700
employees live there. The total payroll of Québec-Téléphone
employees living in Rimouski was over $48 million, and that of all
employees of that company was almost $75 million, in 1995.
(1115)
Figures for 1993 show that Québec-Téléphone bought
$21,294,565 in goods in the territory its serves, and $64,780,435 in
Canada. The company purchased 92 per cent of all the goods it
bought in Canada.
Québec-Téléphone is well established, and it contributes to the
social and cultural development in its region. It also contributes to
the quality of life by supporting many community services. Its
involvement and sponsoring activities are mainly in health,
education, arts, culture, and outdoor recreation. I could not
possibly give the complete list of activities Québec-Téléphone is
involved in, but here are a few examples.
In the area of health, it contributed $350,000 to the Association
du cancer de l'est du Québec towards an experiment with a chip
card to allow consultations and updating of medical records.
In the area of education, it has sponsored for five years the chair
of optical telecommunications at Laval University. A first
agreement for $600,000 was signed in 1988, and then renewed and
increased to $1 million in 1993.
In the arts and culture area, financing of an international organ
and harpsichord international workshop; financing of the
publication of books on the history of the Lower St. Lawrence and
the South Shore; for the last 26 years, publication on the front cover
of the phone directory of a work of art by a Quebec painter.
Québec-Téléphone is also getting involved in the multimedia
sector, with distance learning, distance diagnosis, distance justice,
the Internet, and broad band frequency communications services.
At this point in my speech, I would like to quote again from the
brief submitted by Québec-Téléphone: ``These latter services
demonstrate the capacity of our company to provide, at the same
time as other companies, if not before, advanced services to meet
the real concerns and needs of the people and the businesses we
serve. Québec-Téléphone expects a very bright future if it is given
the opportunity to acquire a broadcasting license. As the company
has done in other areas, it will take this new responsibility
seriously. It will strive to set up a multipurpose network for all of
its customers. It will remain attuned to the daily and more general
needs of the people in order to provide them with a standard of
living comparable to the technological development of the larger
urban areas''.
The brief continues: ``Should Québec-Téléphone's request for a
broadcasting license be turned down, it will mean that these
advanced services will not be available over a good part of the
territory it serves-Québec-Téléphone has a good knowledge of
the people and the companies it serves, especially of their needs.
Throughout its corporate history, it has shared many co-operative
projects and experiences with its customers-and has proven its
sense of responsibility, its entrepreneurship and its progressive
vision as a Canadian company. If Québec-Téléphone is prevented
from getting a broadcasting license, not only will the company be
denied a privilege that could have granted by the lawmakers, but a
majority of the people living on the territory it serves will have to
do without the advanced services the company could have provided
and the residents of the larger urban areas already enjoy''.
Québec-Téléphone's brief goes on to say: ``The 1987 policy
statement and the 1993 act led us to believe that nothing would stop
Québec-Téléphone from offering a comprehensive package of
communication services on its territory, as all other telephone
companies will be able to do, wherever they may be located in
Canada. Québec-Téléphone believes this demand is natural and
that it constitutes a logical extension of vested rights recognized by
the 1987 policy statement and in the communication act.
Québec-Téléphone is convinced that the government will
recognize its efforts and its determination in all fields which have
marked its
1738
long experience and that the government will simply allow it to go
on doing what it has already started out to do''.
Last year, the government adopted orders in council which were
a lot more threatening for Canadian culture than what we are
proposing today. Allowing satellite broadcasting where 75 per cent
of programs originate in the United States represents a much bigger
risk.
A broadcasting licence is important for Québec-Téléphone
because it will allow it to develop the regions affected by the
creation of quality jobs, to make new services accessible at a
reasonable cost, to ensure competition over the territory served by
the company, to promote culture in French and to guarantee the
development of Québec-Téléphone.
(1120)
A licence is desirable for Québec-Téléphone, its customers, the
people it serves, its employees and its shareholders.
I am convinced the government will do everything in its power
to consider this motion favourably and to find a solution which will
be acceptable for all stakeholders, without compromising the
cultural sovereignty of Canada and Quebec alike, and as soon as
possible.
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Québec-Téléphone's rights to hold a licence to provide
broadcasting services on the information highway is a crucial issue
for the people of eastern Quebec. These people should have access
to the same kind of broadcasting, telecommunication and new
communication services as the rest of the Canadian population.
The information highway offers hope for the economy of the
future. I think that is not unrealistic. Right now, the economic,
social and cultural sectors are going through a period of rapid
transition brought about by the power of the information, to name
but one factor.
It is true that electrical connections and wires by themselves will
not create that economic growth. But it is there new information
content and applications essential to every information based
society will be developed.
The federal government showed the way by dealing with issues
related to the creation of the information highway in Canada. That
information highway will answer the needs of the Canadian
population and allow us to remain competitive on the global
communication market.
The government identified three study objects for the public
consultation process leading to the implementation of policies in
that area, namely facilities, content and competition.
With regards to the competition policy, many supported the
guiding principle according to which a fair and sustainable
competition is good for consumers. Canadian consumers have
clearly indicated they want more competitive distribution choices.
Our government's policies have already helped to determine
how competition will be introduced into direct to home satellite
services. Among other things, the government has launched a
process that will make it possible to ensure healthy competition in
the delivery of direct to home broadcasting and telecommunication
services.
Despite the strong competition that will result from these new
types of systems for delivering services, the development of our
cable television and telephone networks in Canada will continue to
be one of our greatest assets in meeting the challenges of the future
in the communications field.
Clear guidelines resulting from the government's policy will
reassure the industries in question and encourage them to invest in
the technologies that will benefit Canadian consumers.
The freedom of consumers to use the services they feel are the
best and to select whichever network or networks they wish can be
respected only if competition between the various stakeholders is
fair and defensible.
In this regard, we have pointed out to the government that it
would be preferable not to give an initial advantage to the cable
television and telephone companies in the provision of services
traditionally offered by one or the other. These conditions apply not
just to the regions served by Québec-Téléphone and BC Tel, but to
the entire country.
It is the CRTC that studies regulatory questions such as the
conditions of interconnectivity and interoperability, in order to
ensure competition in the local telephone services sector. For its
part, the government will determine the evolution of competition
between these networks.
(1125)
The Deputy Prime Minister and heritage minister has indicated
her readiness to find solutions that will guarantee residents of
eastern Quebec and British Columbia the same kind of services
enjoyed in the rest of Canada.
Numerous meetings have already been held between the
directors of Québec-Téléphone and BC Tel and the minister or her
representatives. The talks are continuing, with a view to finding
solutions that will maintain the integrity of the Canadian
broadcasting system, while offering Québec-Téléphone and BC Tel
the latitude necessary to ensure that their networks can be used
effectively and that they complement communications services in
the regions inhabited by their clientele.
1739
The government will shortly be announcing the implementation
of its policy with respect to merging telecommunications and
broadcasting. I am sure that this policy will include the inhabitants
of the Gaspé, the Lower St. Lawrence, the North Shore and any
other region served by Québec-Téléphone or BC Tel.
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
commend my colleague from Quebec for Motion No. 102 which is
currently before the House. It is an excellent motion and one which
we could support 100 per cent if it were expanded to include B.C.
Tel in every reference that was made to Quebec Tel. It seems to me
that the problems with Quebec Tel with regard to the CRTC
regulations and other legislation in Canada apply equally to the
B.C. Tel organization.
I commend the concise way in which the arguments were
presented. The examples given were excellent and they continue to
also prevail in the province of British Columbia particularly with
reference to B.C. Tel. The difference between B.C. Tel and Quebec
Tel is that B.C. Tel is much more pervasive in that it covers the
whole province. I commend my colleague for her willingness to
bring forward this issue.
Rather than rehearse all of the good things that B.C. Tel has done
and is doing and all the good things that Quebec Tel has done and is
doing, I would like to draw brief attention to what brought about
the need for a motion of this type to be introduced in the House.
The primary reason this kind of motion must be presented to the
House is that the legislation governing these foreign ownership of
telephone companies and things of this sort is obsolete. Let me give
a couple of examples of why I think this is the case.
A tiny little company is being developed in southern Ontario
called The Linc which is going to try to combine the provisions of
Internet with long distance telephones. We know that the
communication signals are rapidly going into digital form and not
too long in the future all of them will be digitized which creates
some very interesting points. This makes it possible for signals to
be compressed so that they take up very little space on the highway.
They can then be decompressed at the receiving end to be
interpreted as to what the message really was.
The minister's Information Highway Advisory Council was
made up of all kinds of people. They were not political but were
people who understood the business, particularly the technology
pertaining to communications.
Members of the council said the following about foreign
ownership limits: ``As a means of reinforcing Canadian
sovereignty, the Telecommunications Act, the Broadcasting Act
and Teleglobe Act include provisions respecting Canadian
ownership and control. In broadcasting and telecommunications,
current regulations limit foreign ownership to 20 per cent''.
Apparently as of last week that was changed to 33-1/3 per cent.
``As part of foreign ownership provisions and the Canadian
ownership requirements in the Telecommunications Act 1993,
Parliament introduced grandparenting provisions for two telephone
companies: B.C. Tel and Quebec Tel. The council considered
whether the grandparented status of these companies should be
extended to cover licences to operate broadcasting undertakings. I
submit they should.
(1130)
Foreign ownership limits are meant to promote Canadian
control. They may, however, deny Canada access to the investment
necessary to develop the Canadian information highway. My hon.
colleague across the way recognized how important the
information highway is to Canada's economic, social and cultural
development.
The very restriction being proposed, that is currently in vogue,
and the one that is being proposed that it be lifted would encourage
the development of the information highway, not discourage it. If
we continue to insist on obsolete legislation, we will discourage the
very thing the Minister of Industry is so strongly supporting and
developing.
The council believes that with respect to investment the
behaviour of capital is more critical as a policy issue than its
source. It raises the very interesting question of how one
determines the nationality of capital in the first place. It is
important to recognize that capital in itself has no conscience.
Capital does a variety of things. It seems the issue is not where that
capital comes from but rather what that capital does.
We have Canadian capital engaged in all kinds of activities,
some of which are smuggling and dealing in contraband activities.
It is not that the capital did not originate in Canada; it is capital that
is doing the wrong thing. If we really want to control capital we
should be controlling what capital does so it can meet the
objectives of our social, economic and cultural goals.
We need to have legislation that governs capital so it can operate
in manner consistent with Canada's economic, social and cultural
objectives. To that end, the advisory council went on to say that the
liberalization of the telecommunications environment may be the
most important step to realizing the economy-wide benefits of
information highway use and development following a transitional
period toward market based pricing, a framework of open and
sustainable competition. That is at the heart of this issue.
It is all very well to speak about competition, and then have
legislation which defies the implementation of that competition. It
is important to recognize something which happened last week.
The director of the CRTC, Keith Spicer, proposed that long
distance charges be deregulated. In other words, the CRTC should
not have regulatory power over the setting of those rates. That is
1740
the first admission that it cannot control those rates. The
competition is such that it is always behind the eight ball in those
areas.
Last week the U.S. deregulated local telephone charges, which
raises an interesting question for the ministers involved. What are
the priorities? If Canadians were given a choice between giving the
Canadian telecommunications industry the advantage it needs to be
a strong contender and a leader in the global communications
market, or preventing the Canadian industry from having a fair
chance to compete by condemning our industries to third class,
unable to compete, unable to produce jobs and growth, which do
our ministers think Canadians would choose?
We want jobs. There is no doubt that if we are to have jobs we
need to have competition especially in the electronics industry. If
one talks to the people in the industry it becomes clear very quickly
that if they were limited to competition in the Canadian
environment only, they would not be able to generate the kinds of
profits they would need to expand.
It is highly necessary for the government to realize within its
own ranks, within its own cabinet there is a split over the issue of
foreign ownership of phone and cable firms. There is a
convergence developing in Canada today between telephone
companies and cable companies. They can do exactly the same
thing, provide telephone service and provide cable service.
(1135)
I ask the government to examine the efficiency of the CRTC on
the one hand dealing with telecommunications and broadcasting,
and the Department of Industry dealing with spectrum
management.
We have three different kinds of operations now. We have
telecommunications and cable on this side. With industry, we have
local multiple communications systems and the personal
communication system.
The last two deal with licensing of certain spectra so that the
industries or the companies involved will manage and
communicate on those spectra. These licences have been granted
by the minister of education to some companies. I have a lot of
questions about exactly how the process was implemented to show
fairness and equity for all those applying.
On the other hand, I want to compare what that process was with
what the CRTC is doing. The CRTC is holding back technological
development. It is making it very difficult for the companies to
advance technologically.
On the other hand, the LMCSs and the PCSs and the way the
licences were granted provided increased competition. While one
of the processes is efficient, the other is not. Both have some
problems with them. The time has come to examine how we will
control what capital does in Canada. That becomes the issue, not
where capital comes from.
I encourage the hon. member from Quebec to expand her motion
to include B.C. Tel so that we could support it 100 per cent.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to make a few brief remarks to give the House an idea of
what is going on in the regions with regard to important issues such
as the one raised by my colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata,
namely the granting of a broadcasting licence to
Québec-Téléphone.
Such a licence would put regions such as the North Shore more
or less on an equal footing with the large cities as far as
communications are concerned. I will start by giving a quick
overview since my colleague covered the subject in more detail.
Québec-Téléphone was founded in 1927 by Jules A. Brillant. It
is important to note that in 1966, in order to have access to the
capital he needed to modernize and develop his network, Mr.
Brillant gave up his interest in the company. GTE Corporation
became majority shareholder, which allowed to keep the head
office in Rimouski. That was done to protect the regional character
of the company.
To better understand the difficulties Québec-Téléphone faces, it
is important to know the context in which it operates. The territory
it serves extends over 72,000 square kilometres, which is 40 per
cent of Quebec's total area. Québec-Téléphone is independent in its
decision-making and in the choice of its suppliers. One important
detail I want to mention is that French is the company's only
working language.
During my speech, I will talk a lot about the regions because
Québec-Téléphone is essentially an image of the regions and of the
kind of service that can be offered and obtained in the regions. It
must be noted also that the company is technologically advanced,
offering affordable digital service to all its clients in the regions.
Of course, the company is proud of offering equal access to
advanced services such as teleforum, videoforum, cellular
telephony, 911, Internet, which is very popular right now, and I
would add that the information highway is the key to the future.
(1140)
I was just reading a document describing the information
highway as a way of putting all regions at the heart of economic
activity. It said it gave access to ``cybervillages'', a typical term in
this field.
What is Québec-Téléphone's contribution from the economic
point of view? There is mention of close to $75 million in salaries
in 1995, paid to nearly 1,700 employees spread out more or less
1741
across the area. Despite difficulties in covering the territory, there
are 1,700 workers, 600 of which are also share-holders. This is a
figure worth noting.
There is also more than $800 million worth of property
throughout the area, as well as modern tools for communicating
with customers.
Québec-Téléphone contributes to social and cultural
development through such means as promoting culture,
particularly via its directory, which always features the work of
local artists.
Financial support to the arts is a very important aspect, and one
not shared by other regional businesses: close to $100,000 in
funding to museums, theatre and music in 1995, for example.
One of the key problems encountered, and one for which no one
can be blamed, it is just a regional reality: some, if not most, of
regional businesses merely siphon off local funds, perhaps even
taking away raw materials. Not all of them do so, and not all of
them do so to an indecent extent but, if we look at businesses in the
regions and compare the value of what is taken out of the region
with the sums ploughed back into the region, investment in culture
and young business entrepreneurs, for example, true implication is
a fair exchange. Québec-Téléphone has earned good marks in this
regard, for it has no other investments to protect and to build up
elsewhere. Think Québec-Téléphone and you think North Shore,
the Gaspé, all those areas my colleague for
Rimouski-Témiscouata has just mentioned.
Québec-Téléphone is therefore in the vanguard as far as efforts
invested in cultural and social development are concerned.
There is also mention of a $350 000 donation in 1995 to the east
Quebec cancer society, over 7 years.
Furthermore, its employees are involved in education, health
care, culture, socio-community activities, sports, economics and
politics, areas in which they put some 26,000 hours back into the
region in 1995. This is a huge amount of time. I know from
experience that the corporation vigorously encourages its
employees to get involved in the arts. I know that many are
involved, not only politically but socially and in the community,
pretty much everywhere. The company often provides flexibility in
terms of working hours in order to offer organizations in these
areas some help.
Québec-Téléphone contributes more than $1 million a year to
research and development. It has an endowed chair in optical
telecommunications at Laval University, a French language
research centre on organization automation, and so on.
As time is moving along, I will shorten my next point, which
concerns the high rate of unemployment and the exodus of young
people in fringe areas. Therefore it has to be shown that the
company wants to continue to increase regional development.
With the famous information highway connecting our regions, it
helps outlying regions like eastern Quebec, which encompasses a
considerable area. Things are made so much easier that, through
these technologies, progress is being made at essentially the same
rate. Regions are not necessarily at an advantage, because that
would mean they have more, but they are more or less on the same
footing.
The problem for everyone in the regions is the transmission of
information, getting up to date more quickly. With the new
capabilities Québec-Téléphone is asking for, this problem would be
resolved with a totally regional flavour, something that would not
be guaranteed with outside firms. Québec-Téléphone has proven
itself in this area and, I am sure, will continue to do so.
I will conclude by saying that the firm has demonstrated its
ability in this regard. I think all Bloc members would endorse what
would be, in my view, a justified swing of the pendulum in its
favour while ensuring the region served by the company is well
represented in its future development.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am very glad to have introduced this motion. I was often
asked about the origin of the grandfather clause. As many will
know, its comes from the 15th amendment to the American
Constitution giving blacks the right to vote. But when they came to
vote they were told: ``You can neither read nor write but if your
grandfather voted in the past, this gives you the right to vote''. This
is why we use, by analogy with this 1869 amendment to the
American Constitution, the term ``grandfathering'' when referring
to vested rights.
I readily accept the request of the hon. member of the Reform
Party who asked that the motion I introduced be extended to B.C.
Tel. Besides, B.C. Tel is already participating, as a partner, to all
discussions between Québec-Téléphone and the government and,
as my hon. colleague from the government said, the solution that
will be found for Québec-Téléphone will apply to B.C. Tel as well.
The minister has recently amended the direction on eligible
Canadian corporations, but it is still not enough to meet the needs
of Québec-Téléphone since it is still not 50.4 per cent of shares that
can be owned by a foreign company. The important aspect of this
whole issue, as I believe I have said at the start of my speech, as the
heritage minister herself said and as everyone will understand, is to
find a solution allowing Québec-Téléphone and B.C. Tel to
continue to provide legally and openly multimedia services to the
public, but in a way that would protect the cultures of both Canada
and Quebec.
1742
The Deputy Speaker: There being no further members rising
for debate and the motion not being designated as a votable item,
the time provided for the consideration of private members'
business has now expired and the order is dropped from the Order
Paper.
Is it the pleasure of the House to suspend the sitting for a few
minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.49 a.m.)
_______________
The House resumed at 12 p.m.
1742
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from April 19 consideration of the motion
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.
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to speak today on Bill C-18
which will establish the Department of Health.
Many in the House have observed that the health related duties,
powers and functions which are set out in the proposed new
legislation do not differ greatly from the previous act. Indeed, it
can fairly be said that the old act has served us very well over the
past half century.
At this point I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from
Fredericton-York-Sunbury for a motion he put forward. His
amendment reincorporates a clause from the current Department of
National Health and Welfare Act, an act dating back to 1944. This
amendment explicitly defines the minister's personal and legal
responsibilities for the department.
I am pleased to say that the government gave the member for
Fredericton-York-Sunbury its full support on this amendment
and it was passed at report stage. The Minister of Health as well
shared the concerns of the member that this legislation makes
things perfectly clear with regard to his powers, duties and
functions.
There are some obvious differences in this bill which is to be
expected in a knowledge intensive field like health. One of these
differences is found in clause 4(2)(a) where there is explicit
reference to:
-the promotion and preservation of the physical, mental and social well-being
of the people of Canada;
This is an amplification of the reference in clause 4(1) to the
promotion and preservation of the health of the people of Canada
which corresponds to section 5 in the old act.
What does this mean? Some people have read into it something
of a sinister message, a sign of an as yet undeclared plan by the
federal government to occupy the full arena of physical, mental and
social well-being. Such a move would have a significant impact on
the division of responsibilities for health between the federal and
provincial legislatures.
Others have observed that the inclusion of this clause seems
somewhat odd, given the transfer of the welfare side to the
Department of Human Resources Development. After all, would it
not make sense to consolidate all federal responsibilities for
physical, mental and social well-being in a much more inclusive
health department?
My first observation is that the legislation makes it abundantly
clear that the powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Health
do not extend beyond the area over which the federal Parliament
has jurisdiction. This means that the reach of Health Canada cannot
and will not extend to the legal mandate of other federal entities.
Rather, section 4(2)(a) says how the federal government views
health. The choice of the words ``physical, mental and social
well-being'' is no accident.
(1205)
These are the exact words used by the World Health
Organization to define health. It is a concept that goes beyond
seeing health in terms of the presence or absence of disease. It is a
concept that sees health in terms of the whole person. This is a
concept of health that embraces quality of life rather than just
duration of life. Including the phrase ``physical, mental and social
well-being'' in the bill before us today does little more than to
formalize what has long been a reality.
In my former life I was in the health industry for 30 years and for
many of those years advocated bringing those three elements
together. Rather than divide a person let us look at the person in a
holistic fashion.
It is neither new nor startling. It makes it clear that health means
so much more than the absence of disease. Good health across a
society flows from an entire set of public policies and personal
decisions.
The determinants of health are the complex web of factors that
contribute to the overall state of a person's health. These are social,
economic, physical, psychological and other elements. Is it any
wonder that research shows that people who are unemployed
experience both stress and greater health problems? Or perhaps
1743
hon. members have seen some of the reports in the newspaper
where researchers have found real differences between the health
of people who feel a sense of personal control in their livesand those who do not. All of this simply reinforces what wealready know.
Despite the best technology and the advances in drugs and
procedures, what takes place outside a doctor's office is more
important than what goes on inside that office. This fact has
become a common theme in the analysis of health policy options.
For example, Health Canada spends a large sum of money each
year to provide health services to status Indians and Inuit. Yet
aboriginal people continue to suffer, with many of the poorest
health statistics in our society.
This of course is not a place to discuss these health statistics but
it makes clear the importance of the comprehensive focus on
well-being. It also underlines one of the basis facts of health,
system renewal. We cannot spend our way to good health through
the health care system no matter how much we invest.
We are better off to help people achieve a state of well-being that
results in better health and less need for health care. A growing
appreciation for the many factors that contribute to the health of
Canadians has sparked an increased focus on the elements of
well-being. Progress in this area establishes a foundation from
which our health care systems can operate more effectively. It is
rightly seen as an investment that minimizes future health care
costs and that is extremely important.
Some of these factors lie within the mandate and the programs of
the federal health department. Others lie within the mandates and
programs of other federal agencies. Some are within the reach of
provincial and territorial governments and still others lie totally
outside of the public sphere. This is the reality of health. It is the
reality of Canada's health system. It is a reality that requires
partnership and co-operation. It is a reality that places a premium
on the evidence about determinants of health and the outcomes and
effectiveness of health policies and programs. Most importantly, it
is a reality that does not require any expansion of the federal health
mandate.
(1210 )
Once this focus on partnership for well-being is put into practice,
we see it as the practical concept that it is. Let me use the example
of Canada's drug strategy. The ultimate aim of federal
programming is to minimize if not eliminate the human tragedy
that is the common consequences of drug abuse.
Looking at the problem of drug abuse in these terms allows us to
also consider contributing factors in the context of a much broader
array of health determinants.
Many here will recall the ``Really Me'' message that Health
Canada coined for Canada's drug strategy. This message is meant
to capture in two words the sense of confusion over identity and
destiny that often contributes to a young person's decision to
experiment with dangerous substances as well as the positive
imagery of a drug free life.
Canada's drug strategy obviously encompasses a great deal more
than slogans and messages but is aimed at addressing what
physical, mental and emotional well-being is all about.
Let me offer a current example, the Canada prenatal nutrition
program. This initiative arose from the red book commitment. Its
goal is to promote the development and growth of healthy babies.
However, the route to that goal means addressing the factors that
can harm that development.
Clearly, a child in a mother's womb is no healthier than his or
her mother to be. If the woman is eating poorly or in an abusive
relationship or using drugs, the risks to the baby are very high.
This program, as members are well aware, supports
comprehensive community based efforts aimed at reaching these
high risk, pregnant women. At one level it includes food
supplementation, nutrition and lifestyle counselling and related
information. At another level it gives them more tools to take better
care of themselves and their babies.
The mothers to be targeted by this program are usually poor.
They are often underweight themselves. They may smoke, drink or
use drugs. They also may be in abusive relationships. They often
live in poor areas of our communities. They are often young, single
and uneducated.
Such conditions are the determinants of health that lead to
40,000 low birth weight newborns a year who begin life at less than
full capacity. These are the factors that this program is working to
correct.
The focus on well-being goes far beyond many health promotion
efforts by Health Canada. It extends into health care delivery. The
phrase quality of care clearly means more than clinical outcomes.
Whether or not quality is the result will inevitably vary between
individuals, not because the results vary in clinical terms but
because identical health states may be valued differently by
different people.
Take for example a surgical procedure for which there is a good
chance of a known side effect. For some the side effect may imply a
lower quality of life than living with the disease in question. For
others the reverse would hold true. In both instances the aim of the
clinical decision is to achieve the health states of greater value to
the individual.
This is a choice that every one of us wants to have. Yet it is a
choice that is not available if health is conceptualized in a way that
sees it only as the presence or absence of disease. We are talking
holistic medicine here.
1744
At another level it is obvious that there remains much to be
learned about the factors that underlie and shape a person's fiscal,
mental and social well-being. I am reminded that health concepts
in medical terminologies and technologies have evolved greatly
since 1867 yet at no point has Canada's Constitution been a bar
to the effective pursuit of health.
We are now at a point in which provinces and the federal
government understand and accept the need to build well-being as a
part of the overall health strategy. Governments work together. I
am not aware of any province that seriously sees the Health Canada
mandate for well-being as a threat to its responsibilities. If
anything, it underlines the shared commitment to addressing the
basis of good health and well-being. It underlines a longstanding
commitment to the co-operation that has served us so well.
(1215)
In terms of health status, we are second only to Japan in terms of
neonatal deaths. In terms of our record in the development of
health concepts, Marc Lalonde's 1974 ``A new Perspective on the
Health of Canadians'' is still regarded internationally as a
breakthrough, 21 years after its release. The record of our health
care delivery system speaks for itself, a source of pride for all
Canadians and the envy of the world.
The inclusion of section 4(2)(a) in the enabling legislation
conveys a message about who we are and what we stand for. We
stand for a commitment to the physical, mental and social
well-being of Canadians and a readiness to work with others to
achieve that end. This section simply recognizes the complex range
of factors that influence health and that they deserve consideration
as we promote health.
In short, this section tells us what we already know to be true. A
department charged with promoting the health of Canadians needs
to see its mandate in terms that reflect the reality of peoples' lives
and all the elements that lead to good health.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to be able to speak once again to Bill C-18, which was
introduced as Bill C-95 before the recent prorogation of the
Houses. The bill's purpose is mainly to establish the federal
Department of Health. It also amends and repeals certain other
acts.
Such a bill is absolutely unjustified. There is no reason to pass
such a measure since health is exclusively a provincial jurisdiction.
It is crystal clear in the very constitution the government wants to
impose on Quebecers. I said it before, I say it again and I will go on
saying so. It seems hard to understand, but health is an exclusive
provincial jurisdiction.
With its spending power, the federal government retains the
possibility of interfering in all areas of provincial jurisdiction as it
pleases and without consideration for the distribution of powers
guaranteed in the Constitution. To prove my point, I quote
Alexander Galt, one of the Fathers of Confederation, who stated
that the distribution of jurisdictions as described in the British
North America Act of 1867 did not give provinces enough money
to enable them to properly administer their areas of jurisdiction.
Alexander Galt's comments leave no doubt as to the initial
intentions of the Fathers of Confederation as well as of another
author of the 1867 act, who said that eventually the provinces
would become nothing more than big municipalities under federal
supervision and largely dependant on the central government.
It might be difficult for some to admit today that this might have
been the goal of those who thought up the British North America
Act. Difficult to believe that the act which gave birth to Canada
provided, even at a very early stage, for an increased centralization
of powers in Ottawa.
The point of my little aside was to show that, contrary to what
some would have us believe, nothing has changed. We can see that
the same centralized approach giving the present central
government an overwhelming importance is permeating not the
discourse, heaven forbid, but the actions of today's main federal
leaders. The best example of this can be found in the health care
area in which the federal government has continuously interfered in
an increasingly more persistent way. Bill C-18 before us today is a
case in point.
(1220)
The Constitution Act gives the provinces general jurisdiction
over health care by including generally all matters of a merely local
or private nature in the province. Anyone can read this under
subsection 92.16. Moreover, subsections 92.7, 92.13, and 92.16 of
the same act give the provinces exclusive power over hospitals, the
medical profession and the practice of medicine as well as health
care in general in the province. I might add that this is an area of
exclusive provincial jurisdiction because it pertains to property and
civil rights.
Accordingly, it seems clear that health is under provincial, not
federal jurisdiction. However, the federal government has been
intruding in this area for many years now, and in various ways. The
Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, the Medical Care
Act and, more recently, the Canada Health Act, which combines
the other two and sets so-called national standards, show clearly
what this federal government thinks about shared jurisdiction.
The will or temptation to intrude on health is not new. It goes
back to the end of the second world war. The federal government
1745
had taken over all main taxation areas to make sure it would
control most of the taxes normally levied by the provinces.
At the end of the war, the federal government had a bright idea:
instead of returning powers of taxation to the provinces, why not
redistribute the money through grants subject to standards it would
set. This was a clever way to intrude even more in aareas under
provincial jurisdiction, at a time when it seemed that the Privy
Council in London, which then played the role now assigned to the
Supreme Court, wanted to limit the federal government's
centralizing tendencies.
Since then, the federal government has been using established
programs financing to transfer money to provinces for health and
post-secondary education. The amounts given to provinces under
that program are transferred partly in cash and partly in tax points.
Transfers were computed from expenditures for a base year,
1975-76, and were supposed to be indexed on the average GNP per
capita over the last three years. Basically, since its implementation
in 1977-78, established programs financing has been characterized
by a unilateral partial withdrawal on the part of the federal
government.
Implemented in 1977, the established programs financing
structure has remained unchanged. However, for the last ten years
or so, its intended rate of increase has not been respected. This is
where the shortfall for provinces and Quebec in the area of health
comes from. This is a good example of the damage that a
government can do when it refuses to acknowledge that it cannot
substitute itself to other levels of government everywhere.
In 1986, the federal government reduced the growth rate of
transfers by 2 percentage points, which means that health
expenditures had to grow 2 percentage points less than the GNP.
That was the start of a long series of cuts in payments.
In 1989, there was another cut in the indexing factor of 1
percentage point, which meant that by now growth in health
expenditures had to be 3 points below the growth of the GNP.
In 1990, Bill C-69 froze transfers at the 1989-90 level for an
anticipated period of two years, regardless of inflation, when actual
health costs were continuing to rise.
In 1991, the federal government announced that it was extending
the freeze for another three years. During most of this sad period
for health care, the opposition party was outraged. It clamoured
that this could only lead to ruin for the heath care system. Yet, that
same party, now the government, continues to weaken the system.
The result is that between 1977 and 1994, the federal
contribution to health care went from 45.9 per cent to 33.7 per cent,
a drop of 10.6 per cent that Quebec and the provinces had to deal
with to the best of their abilities. Unfortunately, forecasts for
1997-98 indicate that the federal share will drop to 28.5 per cent.
(1225)
Over the years, as Ottawa withdrew from health financing, it is
almost $8 billion that Quebec alone did not get, that the Quebec
government had to manage to find elsewhere. We can add to that
amount the cuts expected in the Canada social transfer, that is $308
million for 1995-96 and more than $587 million in 1997-98.
According to a study by the C.D. Howe Institute, from 1988 to
1992, while spending for transfer payments remained unchanged,
spending for other federal programs increased by 25.5 per cent.
Consequently, cuts in health transfers to the provinces went to
reduce the federal deficit. The federal government went on
spending too much, while telling the provinces to tighten their
belts.
The leeway the Canada social transfer is supposed to give is in
fact nothing but an opportunity for Quebec and the provinces to
decide for themselves where they will make cuts to make up for
this unilateral withdrawal. That is the vision the present Liberal
government has of decentralization. That is what it means when it
talks about flexible federalism. Thanks, but no thanks. We are not
interested.
Last Spring, the National Council of Welfare, an organization
whose mandate is to advise the federal health minister, had this to
say to the minister: ``It would be extremely hypocritical to reduce
contributions to the provinces while increasing the requirements
they would have to meet''. Yet, the National Council of Welfare is
not known for its sovereignist leanings.
As I mentioned earlier, sections 92.7 and 92.16 of the British
North America Act state that health and social services are
exclusively under provincial jurisdiction. Yet, the federal
government also has a health department.
Next year, it will cost taxpayers more than $1 billion, $1 billion
wasted to do what the Government of Quebec and the governments
of other Canadian provinces could very well do by themselves.
Moreover, this redundant department that employs more than
8,000 public servants allocates significant amounts for programs
and projects that already exist in Quebec and in the other provinces.
I can give you some examples from Quebec, where there is
duplication in programs. Here are a few examples: the strategy for
the integration of persons with disabilities, the family violence
initiative, the new horizons program, the seniors secretariat, the
program to reduce smoking, the anti-drug strategy, the strategy
against AIDS, the pregnancy and child development program, the
children's bureau, and so on.
1746
It is this kind of duplication the federal government should have
cut, instead of stubbornly trying to have its say in every area; the
disastrous impact of this on government finances does not seem
enough to make it face reality. It shifts the deficit onto the
provinces by cutting transfer payments for health care, and people
are paying the price.
There is another federal initiative shows the government's
determination to meddle in health care without the provinces'
consent: the national forum on health, aimed at taking a critical
look at our health care system as a whole and proposing ways to
compensate for the ever increasing costs in this area. According to
several analysts, the federal government could even take this
opportunity to tighten the criteria and requirements in the Canada
Health Act. Moreover, every single province openly criticized the
federal government's attitude, which in this instance is pushing
aside those with legal jurisdiction over health matters.
In this regard, on September 27, 1994, the current Minister of
Immigration told La Presse: ``The federal government's actions
make no sense. How can it contemplate a review of health care
plans without the participation of the provinces, which are
responsible for providing services? This is clearly unacceptable''. I
would be curious to hear the Minister of Immigration's current
position on the national forum.
(1230)
Another extremely wise comment on this Liberal government's
failure to honour provincial areas of jurisdiction was made by
Thérèse Lavoie-Roux, who, when she was still a member of the
other place, asked why the provinces had not been invited to
participate in the forum. ``Are they not the main players in the area
of health? Does the government leader think it is appropriate for
the government to act unilaterally in an area that comes under
provincial jurisdiction?''
Now, looking specifically at Bill C-18, it is clear that, instead of
showing good faith by withdrawing from this area over which it has
no jurisdiction, the federal government is doing its best to encroach
little by little on provincial jurisdictions for its own benefit. This
bill was not presented as a bombshell, as a megabill; it was
presented to us as an innocuous and inconsequential bill, while in
fact it is definitely not so.
Paragraph 4(1) sets out the powers, duties and functions of the
health minister. It suggests that the powers, duties and functions of
the minister extend to and include all matters over which
Parliament has jurisdiction relating to the promotion and
preservation of public health. There certainly is room for
clarification here.
The following clauses are more subtle. Paragraph 4(2) lists
particulars concerning the minister's powers, duties and functions,
including the promotion and preservation of the physical, mental
and social well-being of the people. The people in question are the
people of Canada. This clause would give the federal government
the authority and right to interfere in an area under exclusive
provincial jurisdiction.
Paragraph 4(2) goes on to include the protection of the people
against risks to health and the spread of diseases. There was
nothing to that effect in the original act that Bill C-18 seeks to
replace. This opens the door to the federal government stepping in
to protect the health and ensure the safety of the people by invoking
the national interest or peace, order and good government.
Paragraph (c) of the same clause provides that investigation and
research into public health, including the monitoring of diseases,
come under federal authority.
This creates a problem, since later on, in clause 12, it is stated
that nothing in the 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.
How does the Department of Health intend to monitor diseases
without having access to the necessary information? Under the
Health Services and Social Services Act, health care institutions
are governed by provincial legislation.
Is this a real problem? Does clause 12 adequately restrict federal
involvement in the health care sector, or is it just a front to reassure
the provinces, one that the federal government will easily remove
at will, as it has done so effectively in recent years?
Clause 4 can certainly be interpreted in a very wide and generous
way. We definitely have to wonder about the real meaning of this
clause, which can be interpreted in several ways, and which may
reflect a number of intentions.
It is typical of the federal government to use a seemingly simple
and inoccuous bill to intrude on fields that come under provincial
jurisdiction. However, nobody is gullible to the point of not seeing
what is going on.
Bill C-18 is another typical example of the federal government's
sneaky and quiet way of doing things, without making waves. It
acts like this because it knows full well that no one agrees with its
way of doing things in the health care sector. Instead of admitting
that it is in the wrong and taking corrective action before it is too
late, the federal government persists in a sneaky way, so that no one
will realize what is going on until it is too late.
Clearly, federal interference in the health care sector has a very
negative impact. It is also obvious that the federal government
stubbornly refuses to recognize the fields that come under
provincial authority and also continues to reduce transfers without
1747
making national standards more flexible. We are headed towards
the death of the health system as we know it.
(1235)
No more sad claims that Canada holds the only insurance policy
for a health system such as ours. Yes, we are proud of our health
system; yes, we want to hang on to it and even to improve it; no,
Canada is not an insurance policy for this system, far from it; and
no, Quebec's sovereignty will not spell the end of our health
system, quite the contrary.
The only real threat lies in the lack of vision of a federal
government that no longer has the money to match its centralist
ambitions and that should, as soon as possible, turn over full
authority, including financial authority, in matters of health to the
provinces, at least to those which have asked for it. The health of
Canadians and Quebecers can only improve.
It goes without saying that for all these reasons, and for many
others that I will raise at a later time, it is impossible for the Bloc
Quebecois to support Bill C-18 in any way.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to congratulate my hon. colleague on the clarity of
her address. I think that salient point in it is that attempts have been
made in recent years to clearly demonstrate the considerable
amount of waste and duplication there was between the two levels
of government.
Often people ask for concrete examples of such waste. The
various strategies in the different programs my colleague has
listed, for example to integrate the disabled, the campaigns against
family violence, drug use or AIDS, can readily be seen as
worthwhile from the political point of view. The reason for federal
involvement in these is obvious, particularly because it gets
involved through its spending power.
In today's Canada, we cannot necessarily afford such things. The
hon. member's presentation has made that abundantly clear. I
therefore feel that it would be in the federal government's best
interest to think once again about whether it is advisable to get
involved in this area, before adopting this bill.
I would like to ask the hon. member where the national forum on
health fits into this. I was looking at its mandate just now: ``to
improve the health of Canadians and the efficiency and
effectiveness of health services''.
Mr. Speaker, what I would like to find out from my hon.
colleague is which of the responsible governments is the one most
capable of ensuring efficient and effective health services? Is it the
federal level, which does not provide front line services, or is it the
provincial level, which does provide such services, which has the
responsibility for them, which is always on the firing line? Is it the
provincial governments, all of which are being faced with difficult
choices at this time?
Mrs. Picard: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his
question.
We have reviewed the history of the national forum on health
time and time again. Where does it fit in here? I see it as nothing
more than smoke and mirrors.
At this time, and it can never be repeated too often, the provinces
arre the ones managing health programs within their borders. As I
have always said, I do not in any way question either the quality or
the experience of the people on the national forum, but what use
will their expertise be put to? There is not a single provincial
representative on the forum.
All of the provinces are busy restructuring at this time. We can
see that in Quebec, where the minister, Mr. Rochon, is in the
process of reviewing and restructuring, with a view to managing
the health system in a new way and to ensuring quality health care,
while taking into consideration our aging population, technological
innovation and drugs costs.
The provinces are the ones who know what their needs are. What
can the national forum contribute in addition? Once again, the
federal spending power is being used to start up new things, to
waste time and money.
(1240)
This is not the first time we in the Bloc Quebecois have said that
the national forum on health is, in our opinion, just smoke and
mirrors with which to convince the people of Quebec and of
Canada that this is a good government.
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, I think the demonstration was quite
clear. I would ask the hon. member for more details about an
example of direct concern to her. We are told the government has a
strategy to integrate people with handicaps, whereas in Quebec
there is the Office des personnes handicapées du Québec, whose
head office is in the member's riding, I believe.
Would the federal government not be better advised, rather than
putting in additional funds necessitating even more money for
administration purposes-there must be administrative costs in a
strategy to integrate people with handicaps-not to spend this
money on a program that competes to some extent with action
taken by the Government of Quebec? Would the Office des
personnes handicapées du Québec not benefit significantly more
from the federal government's withdrawal and thus provide a better
and more complete service to Quebecers with handicaps?
Mrs. Picard: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question. This is not the first discussion of duplication.
It is true, the Office des personnes handicapées du Québec is to
be found in my riding. Rather than take into account what is
1748
happening in each province and the programs each has set up, as I
was mentioning earlier, the federal government steps up with its
spending power and, in the name of good government, says:
``There seems to be a problem with seniors-or with people who
have a handicap''. And it assuages its conscience by putting money
into a program, setting up a program that already exists in some
provinces.
Why not support the programs the provinces have already set
up? The provinces know the health care requirements in each of
their regions. After needs have been assessed, programs are set up
to help people, with the help of experts in health care. Seeing that
the program is running well, the government, as I mentioned
earlier, injects money into the program to justify itself and to
assuage its conscience.
And if it is such a good government, why does it not support
these programs by paying subsidies instead of cutting transfer
payments, instead of tightening things up, instead of dumping its
deficit onto the provinces and cutting transfer payments?
[English]
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased and proud to address the House today in
support of Bill C-18, an act respecting the Department of Health.
We have all heard allegations that the federal government has no
role in health. Some contend that the government should leave
health issues to the provinces and territories which actually deliver
the services to Canadians. The government fully appreciates the
provinces have constitutional authority for health care.
The provinces are responsible for health care delivery which
generally encompasses hospital and medical services. The
provinces plan, manage and operate Canada's health care system.
These systems operate however under the framework of Canada's
national health insurance system which we all know as medicare.
This national system ensures that all Canadians, regardless of
ability to pay, have access to well trained doctors and well
equipped hospitals.
I do not wish to lend credence to the myth that the federal role in
health is limited to its financial and other support of Canada's
medicare system. At the same time we have every reason to be
proud of the system and of this government's support for medicare.
Canadians justifiably take great pride in our national medicare
system and the quality of medical services available to all of us.
They know that regardless of where they live, what language they
speak or what their employment status may be, they are all assured
of access to high quality medical and physician services whenever
they are needed.
(1245 )
Medicare also has economic benefits that accrue to Canadian
businesses. Business supports medicare because it provides it with
competitive advantages in the global market. Canadian businesses
do not pay the costs of providing private health care insurance for
necessary hospital and medical services.
Even after taking Canada's taxes into consideration, the cost of
providing employee benefits is significantly lower in Canada than
in the United States. This is certainly one of the factors that helps to
attract multinational corporations to Canada.
The national character of the system also enhances labour force
mobility. Workers do not need to fear health insurance coverage for
themselves or their families because they change jobs or move to
another province in search of employment. Canadians retain their
coverage even if we move and become unemployed.
By guaranteeing Canadians access to quality health care,
medicare helps to ensure a healthy and productive labour force. I
believe our health care system has also helped to foster a sense of
unity among Canadians. Canadian society is multicultural and
diverse, as we all know. At the same time, it is strongly tied to
North American culture.
It is sometimes difficult for Canadians to define ourselves apart
from our neighbours to the south, but health care is certainly an
exception. Our universal health care system is closely tied to our
Canadian identity. It is valued as an outward manifestation of
fundamental shared values, justice, caring, compassion and equity.
Not only is there more to health than health care, there is also more
to the federal role in health than upholding the principles of the
Canada Health Act.
There are only about 25 employees who administer the Canada
Health Act. The department's other employees support uniquely
federal roles and responsibilities, work which is not carried out by
the provinces and in which the federal government has a clear
jurisdiction.
I will briefly outline for the benefit of everyone the vital work of
this department. The department's work is clearly focused on four
business lines. The first of these involves supporting and renewing
the health system. Health Canada works here to maintain universal
access to appropriate health care while helping to ease financial
pressures on the public and private sectors.
In support of these goals, the department administers the Canada
Health Act and makes transfer payments to support provincial
health insurance systems. It also promotes collaboration and
consensus on options for involving the effectiveness and efficiency
of Canada's health system.
A good example is where the department works closely with the
provinces and territories to evaluate the quality and effectiveness
1749
of how health services are managed and delivered across Canada.
This information is shared by all jurisdictions and helps shape the
renewal of our health care system.
The federal government has statutory responsibilities to protect
the health of Canadians. The Department of Health carries out this
responsibility by monitoring and assessing risks to health from
emerging infectious diseases and other public health threats. All
the provinces and public health agencies in Canada rely on the
department's public health intelligence.
The second line is risk management. The department manages
national disease control strategies and ensures the quality and
safety of foods, drugs and medical services for all Canadians. It
also regulates human and veterinary drugs, oversees the safety of
biologics and cosmetics and ensures the safety and nutritional
quality of Canada's food supply.
I cannot emphasize strongly enough the vital federal presence in
this area and how important it is to the health of all Canadians.
Canada currently has no capacity to identify and analyse
potentially lethal infectious diseases such as the Ebola virus.
However, the Department of Health is now constructing a level
four laboratory in Winnipeg which will do just that. When it opens,
this facility will employ 100 scientists. Their work will further
enhance the health and safety of Canadians from coast to coast.
(1250 )
The department's third business line involves collaborating with
partners on strategies related to the health of the population. These
strategies include health promotion, illness prevention and public
education elements. They mobilize efforts to address national
issues such as cancer, family violence, AIDS and prenatal nutrition.
These strategies address the factors that lead to ill health. They
provide much needed support to vulnerable groups at risk including
children, single parents, poor families and seniors. They help
prevent and combat heart disease, breast cancer and many other
illnesses.
These strategies complement but do not duplicate the work done
by Canada's many national volunteer health organizations. We owe
the many volunteers a big debt of thanks for the work they do on
behalf of the health of all of us. We are recognizing volunteer week
in Canada and the number of people in all our communities who
work so hard for the benefit of all of us.
At the same time, these health prevention and illness prevention
strategies of the Department of Health reduce demands on
Canada's health care system, thus contributing to reduced health
care costs.
Prenatal care is a good example. The cost of neonatal care for a
low birth weight baby is about $60,000. The health promotion and
prevention activities aimed at ensuring a healthy birth weight on
average costs about $400 per child.
The Department of Health's fourth business line involves
providing health services to First Nations and other groups such as
Canada's military personnel. It is not generally well known that
Health Canada provides community health services to status
Indians on reserves and to residents of Yukon through 600 health
facilities across Canada. It also ensures that registered Indians and
eligible Inuit receive a range of medically necessary goods and
services not available from the provinces.
Apart from transfer payments to provinces, two-thirds of Health
Canada's budget is devoted to the health of natives and native
health issues. This is the only area in which Health Canada is
directly involved in the health care delivery system.
The department is responsible for assessing and sharing the
health of special groups such as civilian aviation personnel. It
ensures the safety of the Canadian public in cases of national
civilian disasters.
Together these four business lines include a range of activities
designed to maintain and improve the health, safety and well-being
of Canadians. Without a strong federal role in health we would
have no national standards or processes to ensure the safety of
Canada's food supply, its medical devices and drugs. There would
be no national public intelligence to protect us from the emerging
infectious diseases which are becoming increasingly common and
increasingly complex.
The Department of Health is certainly vital to the fabric and
daily life of the nation. It helps ensure the safety and well-being of
Canadians from coast to coast and makes important contributions
to the nation's productivity, competitiveness and prosperity.
I am proud to go on record in supporting this bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with interest to what my hon. colleague just
said. I appreciated the listing of the various mandates of the federal
health department but just the same we must wonder what it is
doing there. Why is the federal government once again interfering
in an area of provincial jurisdiction?
Incidentally, I would like to quote two women who can hardly be
accused of being sovereignists. Mrs. Robillard is currently a
member of the federal cabinet but she was Quebec's health minister
in 1994. On September 27, 1994, she was quoted in La Presse as
saying: ``The federal government's conduct is appalling. How can
they consider changing the health system without asking the
provinces, which are responsible for providing the services, to
participate? That is just not acceptable.''
1750
The other woman is Thérèse Lavoie-Roux, who, on May 31,
1994, said that the government was wrong in disregarding the
role played by the provinces. She added: ``Why were the provinces
not invited to participate in the forum? Are they not the main
players in the area of health? Does the government leader think
it is appropriate for the government to act unilaterally in a matter
of provincial jurisdiction?'', she asked.
(1255)
I wonder why the federal government keeps on interfering
stubbornly in this particular area. This is obviously an area which
could pay handsome dividends, come election time. Some areas are
more important, more strategic than others and health is one of
them. If only the federal government was responsible, as it should,
it would recognize from the start that it has no spending power in
that area and would therefore not spend money there, but rather let
the provinces look after these matters, thus preventing the kind of
duplication we are currently experiencing. So, how can the hon.
member justify that his government's interference in this area, if
not because of purely political motives?
[English]
Mr. Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not something to win
votes. The hon. member needs to recognize it is a Canada health
act. The role of the federal government is to ensure all Canadians
are treated the same way, that all Canadians have access to the
same treatment as anyone else.
If the provinces in some cases wish to duplicate or add to those
services as far as informational services are concerned, that is
certainly up to them to do so. I would question whether that is
necessary all the time.
If we look at the intelligence, the information the federal
government makes available to Canadians, the government
certainly feels it has an important duty to inform Canadians. No
matter what the issue, all Canadians want to know from the same
source if possible what the health and safety standards are in
Canada, what the medicare standards are, what they can receive for
medicare if they move from one province to another province. That
is the role.
We have shown very clearly over the years this is the wish of
Canadians. We in the government are determined to maintain that
for all Canadians so they know its full value.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the forum on health is to
improve the health of Canadians and to increase the efficiency and
effectiveness of health care. Can the hon. member, who believes
the Canada Health Act requires the government to ensure that
Canadians across the country enjoy the same quality of health care,
tell us if, in light of its systematic withdrawal amounting to
millions and billions of dollars, the federal government is not
managing an empty shell?
Despite imposing national standards and gradually withdrawing
financial support, the government now requires the provinces,
which are providing the services, to comply with national standards
without giving them the means to act in this area. If the federal
government really wanted to carry out its mandate in this regard,
should it not stop collecting the taxes allocated to health care and
allowing the provinces to act in this area, thus giving them access
to more money so they can provide adequate services? Will the
health forum help improve in any way the quality of health care
provided to the people of Quebec and the other provinces? I doubt
it.
[English]
Mr. Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and some of his
colleagues should realize and admit that as a country, whether on
health issues or any other, we will continue to be strong by working
together.
If the hon. member is saying federal dollars for health should be
handed over to each province and each province should do its own
willy-nilly thing as far as health care is concerned, I am sorry, but
he is speaking to the wrong government. He is speaking to
Canadians who do not want to hear what he is saying.
Canadians have made it very clear to all of us that they recognize
we do not have as many dollars as we once thought we had. We
have to be doing more with less or at least as much with less in the
future.
Only by sitting down and talking in forums such as the national
health care forum with representatives of the federal government,
the health care industry, the health delivery service and people in
the provinces can we put our heads and available funding together,
federally and topped up if necessary from the individual provinces,
to provide what all Canadians have made it clear they want and
having it made available to them in every corner of the country.
(1300 )
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-18, which would formalize
the reorganization of the Department of Health.
As Reform's deputy health critic I will speak in support of the
bill but before I do I would mention that the bill in our minds is
simply just another shuffling of bureaucrats. It is taking up the
expense and time not only of Parliament but more important,
taxpayers' dollars, as signs are shifted on doors and offices are
relocated. This is another example of phantom legislation the
government will say is actually doing something, rather than
making substantive changes for Canadians.
Of course, every member of the House would admit that health
care and our health system is of very real importance to all
Canadians. Health Canada is under the scrutiny of Canadians. A
1751
very real concern to Canadians is the sustainability of our health
care system.
The federal role in the health care system is very real. A part of
that role is federal funding to the provinces. I would say that the
government has failed Canadians in that role. Canadians are feeling
the effects of the cutbacks from this place. For instance in
Manitoba, health care workers are on the streets protesting changes
which have been deemed necessary and are a direct result of
decreasing and unpredictable federal funding. This place has
offloaded its debt to the people who will be hurt the most.
The current health system is not working and it will continue to
worsen. The government refuses to recognize this fact. It refuses to
hear about it.
The Reform Party wants to assure Canadians that they will have
a sustainable health care system. All Canadians should have access
to health care services regardless of their ability to pay. We in the
Reform Party care about the system and we are prepared to work
with Canadians to find ways to make the system better.
I have a broad concern that surrounds the bill and the functioning
of our government. Fundamental to our system of government is
the principle of ministerial accountability and responsibility. Not
only is the recognition of this principle vital, the practice of it is
crucial to another principle, that of good government which our
system is intended to provide for the betterment of all Canadians.
Even though the bill is housekeeping legislation, Reformers
support it because it has been amended to take this principle into
account. At report stage we supported an amendment which
instilled this principle in the bill. It was not contained in the
previous version which the government drafted and presented to
the House for its consideration.
There is a litany of examples demonstrating the need for the
principle and practice of ministerial accountability and
responsibility which are specifically related to Health Canada and
the health of Canadians. I will mention a few.
Recently we heard of the mismanagement within the health
protection branch of Health Canada. The mismanagement of our
national blood system by the bureau of biologics has led to a
tainted and compromised blood supply which has infected
thousands of Canadians with HIV and hepatitis C. An issue related
to this is that of the Krever inquiry which is examining the failure
of the management and oversight of our national blood supply
system.
(1305 )
Last week in a statement to the House I criticized the
government and the health minister for failing to uphold his
ministerial responsibilities. It was revealed that the federal
government is paying the legal bills of two former ministers
involved in this tragedy while giving very minimal legal support to
victims and their families who are trying to pursue the truth in the
courts on this matter.
What has been the response of the government and the health
minister? He has joined a chorus of those who are legally
challenging the legitimacy of this inquiry. Instead he should be
safeguarding the mandate of the inquiry and facilitating a full
report on all matters relating to this most important issue. By doing
so he could actually fulfil his responsibilities to the crown, the
House and most important, the Canadian people. He has chosen to
do otherwise.
A third and final example of where the practice of ministerial
responsibility is required is related to the fiscal management of the
department and the allocation of our increasingly scarce health care
dollars.
Since I was appointed Reform's deputy health critic, one
observation I have made is the imbalance and inequity in the
department's and the government's health care spending priorities.
This became clear to me when I was on the subcommittee on HIV
and AIDS which studied the national AIDS strategy. I discovered
an imbalance in federal funding for diseases in relation to the
incidence of various diseases and the toll they inflict on our society.
For instance, in 1994-95 the federal government spent $43.4
million on the national AIDS strategy while only spending $4
million on breast cancer research. Compare those funding levels
with the incidence rates of these diseases and the deaths inflicted
on society. Since 1980 there have been approximately 10,700 HIV
cases with 7,400 deaths from AIDS in Canada, while in 1995 alone
almost 18,000 families will have a loved one affected by breast
cancer and a total of 5,400 dead.
I have received letters from across Canada on that very issue.
The government must be held responsible for how it allocates
health care dollars. The imbalance of those figures speaks volumes
in this place and across Canada.
It is clear this government and the health minister must be held
accountable for their decisions, the management of our health care
system and the health care policies which have been their track
record to this date. The principle of ministerial accountability and
responsibility is so fundamental to our democratic system of
government that we must all remain vigilant and uphold it. I intend
to hold the government and the minister accountable for his
ministerial responsibilities.
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians and Nova Scotians in my area continually want
to know what the third party's official platform position would be
on health care.
In September 1993 we heard the leader of the third party say that
his party supported user fees and deductibles and would eliminate
universality. He said that in Canadian Living. Then in October
1752
1993 the Toronto Star reported that Reform was opposed to private
health care and user fees. The member for Macleod said in the
House on October 17, 1995 that medicare was bad for everyone. On
November 23, 1995 he said that medicare was important to all
Canadians.
Where does the hon. member feel the federal government has a
responsibility with regard to our health care system?
Mrs. Hayes: Mr. Speaker, as a member of this House and as a
public figure, my response to items I read, particularly in some
papers, is not always reflective of the actual thrust or intent of what
was written. It is good to have the opportunity to say straight out
what positions we hold without having it go through the sieve and
the contortion which can happen in the media.
(1310)
I will repeat what I mentioned in my speech. Reform's bottom
line is that we would like a medicare system which guarantees
access to needed health care for all Canadians regardless of their
ability to pay. That is our bottom line and it is what we are seeking
to find. The system right now is crumbling and the federal
government refuses to recognize this fact.
People are on the streets striking because of federal funding
cutbacks. We say that the federal government does have a place in
funding medicare and ensuring the health care of Canadians. The
funding should be predictable and constant. It should not be, as it
has been, something that is being continually eroded through time
so that the provinces cannot themselves make the plans and create
the necessary approaches for proper health care. There should be a
place for federal government funding but it should be predictable
and sustained over time so that it becomes what is needed by the
provinces to make their plans to meet the needs of the public.
Beyond that, we believe that health care needs to be looked at
and certainly opened to public scrutiny through discussions with
the various stakeholders and the provinces. In that way we can find
the means that will actually create a system that will be there for all
Canadians not only today but in the future. Right now that is not the
case and it will not be the case unless we open up health care to the
scrutiny of those people who are involved in it.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
very carefully to the speech of the Reform Party member.
Sublauses 4(1) and 4(2) of Bill C-18 give the minister extended
powers to act in every area related to the promotion and the
preservation of the heath of Canadians.
These two provisions give the federal government the authority
to interfere in an area which comes under the exclusive jurisdiction
of the provinces. As everyone knows, when the federal government
gets involved in areas of provincial jurisdiction, it is very costly
and it results in waste.
For example, the national forum on health, which the
government decided to hold without the provinces' participation, is
a useless effort, precisely because the provinces are not
participating in it. I want to ask the hon. member what she thinks of
these two provisions which grant extended authority to the
minister. As I said, this is a source of waste which we cannot afford
right now.
[English]
Mrs. Hayes: Mr. Speaker, certainly a great concern of Reform is
duplication of federal and provincial powers. We agree with our
Bloc colleagues that any costs incurred in doing the same thing
twice is not worth the doing. There has to be a clear delineation of
federal and provincial powers. As I look at the estimates for this
year-we are now in the process of looking at the estimates within
the health department-I see very great problems and greater
encroachment on provincial jurisdiction in the name of health.
(1315)
For instance, in the estimates there is an indication through the
health window that the federal government is encroaching on the
education system in the area of sex health education. The federal
government has guidelines for kindergarten through to grade 12.
What my colleague has suggested is of great concern to me. I go
back to what I referred to in my speech, and that is ministerial
accountability. The minister is responsible for what is done, how it
is done and who pays for it. If it is a duplication of service, I would
be the first to say that it is not an appropriate expenditure or effort
for this place if it is a provincial responsibility. Certainly
jurisdiction has to be taken into consideration and should be a very
real concern for members of Parliament.
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the third reading of Bill C-18.
This bill is not earth shattering in what it does. It does something
which is very important nevertheless.
Mr. Thompson: It is typical Liberal legislation.
Mr. Simmons: My friend from Wild Rose is informed, as usual.
I say to him and others that this bill will create the new
Department of Health. The old department was called national
health and welfare and this bill together with the one dealt with the
other day affects the change.
This bill confirms the mandate of the minister regarding the
promotion and preservation of the health of Canadians. Health is a
matter that affects Canadians very deeply. Our medicare system
has come to be part of the way in which we see our country. We
1753
believe that the federal government has an essential role in
medicare and in safeguarding the overall health of the Canadian
population.
In this time of change to our health system, many people want to
know where the federal government stands on health issues.
Canada's health system will continue to rely on the interlocking
responsibilities of federal, provincial and territorial governments.
That is why in the recent budget of March, the government went a
long way toward providing provincial and territorial governments
with stability and predictability in health funding and other social
services of $25.1 billion each year over a five-year period,
comprising a tax floor that had been requested by the provinces and
tax transfer points.
(1320 )
Health Canada bears the overall responsibility for protecting and
encouraging the health and safety of Canadians through promotion
and prevention activities at the national level. It assesses the safety
of drugs and medical devices. It deals with issues such as the
potential impact on Canadians of exotic viruses or the
re-emergence of public health threats such as tuberculosis. It
encourages healthier lifestyles and active living.
The federal health department also supports the health system
through funding for research as well as financial and technical
contributions to provincial health systems. The federal health
department arranges health care programs and services only for
specific categories or groups of people who are a federal
responsibility such as status Indians and the Canadian Armed
Forces. Otherwise, the federal department is not a delivery agent
for health care. That lies with the provincial and territorial
governments. They have the primary responsibility in the area of
health care delivery. They design and manage the system that most
of us as Canadians use. However, the federal department does play
an important national leadership role in health that Canadians see
as essential.
Health issues figured very prominently in the Liberal Party's red
book in the last federal election campaign. For example, a head
start program for children of aboriginal families living in urban
centres and large northern communities was promised. A number
of projects under that program have already been funded.
Action on prenatal nutrition programs was also promised in the
red book. They are being delivered through the community action
program for children.
There are other commitments on which the government is acting
but I will talk about them a little later. What is common to all of
those initiatives is their national scope and the value of national
action on each of them.
Of course this work also involves financial support for the health
care system for the provinces and the territories, as I said a moment
ago.
Federal health contributions have evolved over the last four
decades from cost sharing arrangements to block funding transfers
to the provinces and territories. Since 1984 the Canada Health Act
has set out the five criteria that provincial and territorial medical
insurance plans have to meet to qualify for federal support.
These five criteria are worth repeating here today. The first
principle is universality. The Canada Health Act supports
provincial health insurance systems that cover all eligible
residents.
The second principle is accessibility. Services must be available
without financial barriers. People must be given health care on the
basis of need, not on the basis of how much they can afford to pay.
The third important principle is comprehensiveness. If a
province defines a service as medically necessary, that service
must be covered completely.
The fourth principle is portability. Canadians with coverage in
their home province or territory maintain that health plan coverage
when they travel or when they move. This is a very important
principle, like the others, given the mobility in this country at this
time, the number of people who move from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction, from province to province and from province to
territory.
The fifth principle, together with the ones I have mentioned,
universality, accessibility, comprehensiveness and portability, is
public administration. It means that the health insurance plans of a
province must be administered and operated on a non-profit basis
by a public authority. That, to me, is the one some of the provinces
either have difficulty understanding or difficulty wanting to live
with. That is one of the five principles that we on this side of the
House are committed to continue to enforce, the principle of public
administration.
(1325)
The government takes these five principles very seriously. It has
resisted the false claims that watering down the act is the only way
forward. Canadians want the health insurance system they have
built during our lifetime to continue. They do not want to see a
two-tier system and I do not want to see a two-tier system either.
Canadians understand that medicare has been a great social
benefit. It has been one with very strong economic benefits as well.
It is an efficient, effective program for providers, hospitals and for
1754
Canadians. In fact, the average man or woman knows this
reliability better than some commentators. We are better off thanks
to medicare. That is why the federal government has defended the
Canadian system of health insurance so strongly.
The government has been equally clear that it believes the health
system needs to be reviewed. Canadians know the economic issues
facing the health system. Make no mistake, they are the same
issues in the United States and in other developed countries around
the world. Many countries face issues such as rising costs of care,
the emergence of new health needs, aging populations, the
appearance of new medical technologies, drugs and other factors.
We are all asking where the money goes.
As a country we face more challenging health issues. For
example, all Canadians agree that tobacco is a major health issue.
The Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed that smoking
consumption in this country causes deaths of the order of nearly
40,000 each year. Remember that smoking is a costly exercise to
the Canadian economy. The estimated cost to the Canadian
economy is $11 billion a year. This figure incudes the costs to the
health care system and the overall loss of productivity for
Canadians as a whole.
The federal government is determined to work with its
provincial counterparts as stakeholders to bring forward a
comprehensive and focused package to address the tobacco issue.
There are other concerns. I have mentioned the tobacco issue.
There are women's health issues for example. It is an important
priority for the government and I am sure it is for provincial
governments and stakeholders alike. It is time to address key issues
surrounding women's health.
There is the issue of new reproductive technologies. Some who
may have followed this issue will recall that the previous
administration sponsored a Royal Commission on New
Reproductive Technologies which contained numerous
recommendations. This administration is now considering these
recommendations. The government hopes to be able soon to move
on a number of those recommendations in a substantive way.
Members from all parties in the House have called for action on the
issues of new reproductive technologies, of women's health, of
tobacco. There have been calls from all over and the government is
acting on those issues.
We must begin to consider what will become of the health
system down the road. We know that spending more on the status
quo is unlikely and that direction would not give us much better
health outcomes than we now have.
The international evidence is clear that spending more on health
care does not mean better health results by itself. Why? Health care
is not the same as health and people often wrongly equate the two.
(1330 )
The status of a person's health is determined by many factors
which are in place long before he or she sees a doctor or is admitted
to a hospital. Some are as basic as genetics. Others involve the
economic, the social or the environmental conditions in which we
live. Still others are grounded in lifestyle choices. All these are
determinants of health.
Progress in improving health may owe far more to living in an
economy which produces good jobs or programs that help people
live in proper housing surrounded by a clean environment. They
are reasons for us to invest in effective health protection and
promotion measures, ones that result in people making better
health choices.
Health care is not enough, but it is important. Our question is
how to achieve the best health results possible with the money that
we have. This renewal process has been under way now for a few
years. The challenge for all of us is to break out of the traditional
box of health thinking. It will mean change. Community based
health service centres and multidisciplinary team approaches to
health care are changing the landscape of health care delivery.
The increased awareness that good health begins long before a
visit to a doctor will mean an increased emphasis on the education
of health consumers and preventive medicine. People will need to
learn what physicians can and cannot do for them. People will need
to learn how much they can take charge of their own lives. These
steps are each part of a broader evolution of our health care system.
Canadians trust their health care system. They expect the federal
government to support and defend that system, especially the
fundamental principles on which medicare is based. That is why we
need a strong federal Department of Health and why I am
encouraging members of this House to support the bill before us
today.
I mentioned a moment ago the issue of determinants of health.
We in the Standing Committee on Health which I have the honour
to chair are doing a study on the determinants of health as they
relate to younger children. It is an important issue.
We in this Chamber and elsewhere are aware that poverty for
example is a real determinant of health for people. We have direct
correlations between poverty levels and such matters as the rate of
suicide among people. Poverty levels and achievement in school
are two areas where poverty impacts on other outcomes. The
all-party health committee of the House is now undertaking a rather
in depth study of this issue to see what needs to be done and is not
currently being done in the area of children's health.
1755
The bill before us is not one that is terribly earth shattering but
Bill C-18 is an important piece of legislation. In the jargon of the
House it is considered only a housekeeping bill to put in place
the necessary statute to allow the department to function.
I am rather delighted that the current Minister of Health is my
good friend from Cape Breton. Already in the short time he has
been in the portfolio I have watched with some satisfaction his
commitment to the serious challenges we face in health care and
his determination to do something about those issues. He is a good
spokesperson for the issues. I certainly wish him well, together
with his parliamentary secretary from Eglinton who has just taken
on that responsibility.
(1335)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on first looking at the bill to establish the Department of
Health, one might think that it was a housekeeping bill, that it was
quite ordinary, since there was at one time a department that looked
after social affairs, welfare and such things. One might also tell
oneself that the federal government had already played a role in
this field and that this was probably just an update.
But it is also an opportunity to look at what the federal
government has to do and what its responsibility is in the health
sector. For this, we must look back at the origins of our health
system. In the past, because of its spending power, the federal
government contributed to the development of programs that,
while they must be recognized, often parallelled those run by the
provincial governments.
Today, these prosperous times are pretty much over and we are
facing a completely different situation. The federal government is
reducing its spending on health by billions of dollars, but insists on
maintaining national standards. It is determined that the rules
should be the same throughout Canada.
The way the government has found to ensure this is by creating a
department, by means of the Canada Health Act, which sets these
standards. But it is like anything else: to keep the thing going, you
need the corresponding funds and an effective way to put them to
use.
I think that the best example of very inappropriate interference
by the federal government in this sector is the creation of the
National Forum on Health. What is the National Forum on Health?
It is a group of specialists appointed by the federal government
with a mandate to improve the health of Canadians, increase the
efficiency and effectiveness of health services, and formulate
related recommendations for the government. It is a forum with a
multi-million dollar budget.
The problem is that this forum is looking at a provincial field of
jurisdiction, because in Canada the everyday management of health
is a provincial responsibility. When there is a problem in a hospital
or community health centre or any other kind of health problem, it
is the provincial government that is responsible. It is to the
province that people must address their questions and inquiries as
to why things are not working or their praise when things are
working as they should.
The federal government, meanwhile, gives itself the right to
meddle in this area by assigning to the forum the very general
mandate of improving the health of Canadians and increasing the
efficiency and effectiveness of health care. Unfortunately, the
provinces were not invited to participate in this forum as
full-fledged members. How can the federal government assess the
quality of Canadians' health without allowing the main players to
participate and have their say in this? This forum has a budget of
several millions of dollars and, when we see how difficult it is to
fund health care across Canada, we cannot help but think that these
millions of dollars could have been better spent elsewhere.
I know that if the people in my region had received any of this
money, they would have known exactly what to do with it. Given
the need to restructure the system, to reduce the number of beds for
seniors, to convert hospitals, if money had been available, if the
federal government had withdrawn from health care and allowed
the provinces, including Quebec, to act in this area without
increasing taxes, interesting solutions could surely have been put
forward.
Why is the federal government stubbornly meddling in this area
even though it does not have the money to do so? One cannot help
but wonder if this has anything to do with the significant impact of
health care on voters. Of course, a government with the power to
spend as it sees fit, a power only limited by its capacity to borrow,
may be tempted to meddle in areas likely to improve its chances of
re-election, in areas that may improve the government's image but
are none of its business.
For instance, the federal government has a strategy for the
integration of people with disabilities, while Quebec has the Office
des personnes handicapées du Québec. This is an obvious case of
duplication since it is impossible to act in an area like this without
part of the budget going to administration. Had the money
allocated to the strategy for the integration of people with
disabilities been transferred to the provinces, all the money could
have gone straight to the handicapped, since most of the
administrative costs would already have been borne by the existing
bureaucracy.
(1340)
At the same time there is a federal strategy on violence, an
anti-drug policy, an AIDS strategy, the children's bureau, an
anti-smoking strategy, all areas in which provincial government
take similar action and that require dialogue between the two levels
1756
of government, if duplication is to be prevented. Interface
committees have to be established, which involves operating
expenditures, but these committees do not provide services directly
to the public.
This is important, especially since individual citizens are
wondering these days why the system costs so much to operate. Are
doctors, the nursing staff or those providing services on the front
lines in the hospitals overpaid? Or are there not clearly savings to
be made at the administrative level?
When the federal government acts in exactly the same areas as
the provinces, we must ask ourselves who is responsible for these
areas under the Constitution. It is clearly stated that health matters
come under the jurisdiction of the provinces. So, under the cover of
an innocuous bill, the federal government is once again meddling
in the provinces' affairs. In that sense, it is not playing the role it
was intended to play, it keeps interfering in an area over which it
does not necessarily have jurisdiction and it could even take
conflicting action in certain areas.
There is also an element that is more tendentious, in a sense:
federal interference in the form of national standards. This leaves
the provinces, who are facing budget cuts, with the unpleasant task
of making choices, taking into account population dynamics and
ageing. They deal directly with clients and have to make choices in
terms of direct service, but at present they do not have all the
leeway they could have on behalf of those clients, because
spending power in this specific area is in the hands of another level
of government, which interferes indirectly.
We are also faced with a somewhat absurd situation. In past
decades, the federal government invested a lot of money in that
sector and a number of programs were created. Now, we no longer
have the means to fund these programs. However, the federal
government would never say that it is because less money is being
given to the provinces.
It invokes the need for national standards to justify telling the
provinces that they must somehow find a way to meet these
standards. This puts the provinces in situations which can
sometimes be absurd, given that they have no money for certain
programs, while spending could be reduced in other sectors, but is
not.
Imagine a federal government that would only get involved in
those areas for which it is responsible. Imagine the latitude that
provinces would have from a taxation point of view, to look after
their own areas of jurisdiction. The federal government would then
simply have to assume its own responsibilities.
In such a situation, federal cuts affecting national defence could
be used by the central government to fulfil its responsibilities.
However, withdrawing from an area such as the health sector could
also be a way to reduce the size of the federal government, which
spends about $1 billion in that sector, even though it does not come
under its jurisdiction.
Let me stress my point by mentioning again the areas in which
the federal government is involved. There is the issue of family
violence. As you know, family violence is the result of a whole set
of situations. The Government of Quebec, among others, has
implemented policies to deal with this issue. However, federal
initiatives do not necessarily complement these policies and there
is room for improvement in that regard.
The Bloc Quebecois' position on these issues is not necessarily
held only by Quebec sovereignists, or like minded proponents of
independence.
(1345)
As an example, I give you Lucienne Robillard, now a federal
minister. At the time, she was Quebec's health minister. On
September 27, 1994, she told La Presse, and I quote: ``The
behaviour of the federal government makes no sense. How can the
health system be overhauled without involving the provinces,
which are responsible for the delivery of services? It is quite
simply unacceptable''.
I think that says it all. These are the words of the minister, who
was a minister in a provincial Liberal government, a federalist
provincial government, in reference to the national forum on health
on September 27, 1994.
In the same vein, Thérèse Lavoie-Roux, a senator, told the
Senate on May 31, 1994 that the government was wrong to neglect
the role of the provinces. She asked the following questions, and I
quote: ``Are the provinces not considered major partners? Why
were they not invited to participate in the forum? Does the
government leader find it appropriate for the government to be
acting unilaterally on a matter of provincial responsibility?''
We must remember how it was that the national forum on health
came about. The Prime Minister invited the provinces to take part
in the creation of this forum. Talk about hard to believe. Here we
have a provincial field of responsibility, and the provinces are
relegated to a position of listening to what is going on but not
allowed to voice their views, to make suggestions for
improvement. Perhaps it was feared that the provinces might
indeed make some suggestions. Perhaps the provinces ought to
have joined forces to state that the best thing would be for the
federal government to pull out of this area and to turn the available
funds over to the provinces for their own use.
Despite provincial opposition, despite opposition from such
people as the senator, despite submissions from everywhere in
Canada, the federal government has decided to continue, to go
ahead with its project, to create the national forum on health, solely
1757
for the purpose of meeting the campaign promise that had been
made.
How effective was the forum? Are there many people who have
seen concrete solutions offered by the forum? Are the millions of
dollars spent in this sector being used to improve Canadians'
health, as the mandate given it by the federal government would
have it?
What more needs to be said to make it clear that the federal
government is involved in an area it does not necessarily have any
business being involved in? In the bill it is indicated that it could
not intervene in areas that are already governed by the health
authorities, yet these are described elsewhere in the bill as
authorities with which it may have dealings.
In the last budget, the government decided to create a research
centre in this area, once again an action that appears totally
praiseworthy at first. We are told that health research is really very
important, will lead to the develop of new drugs, will help people
be healthier.
But if we look a bit further, we see that the provinces have the
same mandate. There will be overlap in spending at a time when we
cannot afford to do that.
When asked where to cut, we answer: ``Eliminate overlap''.
Health is a case in point, a clear case where the federal government
should be made to withdraw from this area. Before passing a bill
establishing the health department, in its present form, before
granting the minister, as in clause 4, extremely wide powers to take
action, we must question the real scope of the clause.
Clause 4 deals with the powers, duties and functions of the
minister with regard to health, including:
(a) the promotion and preservation of the physical, mental and social
well-being of the people of Canada;
I think that some provincial health ministers must have
wondered who was responsible for what when they read this clause.
Paragraph 4(2)(b) says:
(b) the protection of the people of Canada against risks to health and the
spreading of diseases;
(1350)
In this case, the federal government can always invoke the
national interest and the federal power related to law and order, and
good government to step in to protect the health and safety of the
people of Canada.
The concept of good government is an interesting one, but one
which is open to abuse. Perhaps this bill should have been better
framed, better defined, to state clearly in which fields the federal
government is allowed to take action and to limit it to those.
For instance, when we talk about health care for natives, we
realize that the Constitution provides the legal basis for action. But
when we talk about getting involved in people's health in general,
we realize that under the Constitution, this is under provincial
jurisdiction, and we question whether it is legitimate to keep on
interfering in this area.
As a matter of fact, had it not been for the possibility, in the
beginning, in the sixties and seventies, to use the spending power,
that is to tax citizens to provide them with services in order to make
the federal government more visible, it is unlikely that such
interference would have occurred.
After the second world war, the federal government realized that
with the power to levy taxes it had increased through income tax, it
weilded great political power. So it tried to implement a universal,
Canada-wide health system to provide the same services all over
the country. However, there are different regions in Canada and,
since there are two levels of government, different provinces can
make different choices according to what their citizens want.
The power the federal government wields, through national
standards, allows it to try to impose the same behaviour to all
provincial governments, but this is not necessarily good. If
Quebecers and Canadians had wanted that, they would have said so
and the Constitution would provide for this area to come under
federal jurisdiction, but it is not the case. This is not what is in the
Constitution.
For many who are involved with federal programs the reality is
always the same. Take, for example, the new horizons program.
The orientation of that program has changed from year to year, at
the whim of successive governments. There were years where
seniors' clubs in various municipalities were able to buy very
useful equipment. Suddenly, last year, the program changed
direction, but the connection between that change and the needs of
the people was not at all clear.
Today, the new horizons program is aimed at specific clients
who would be in a difficult situation. I do not know it members see
the direct link there is with the local implementation of CLSC
policies. Local community service centres have mandates to help
seniors, but they do not have the financial resources of such
programs as the new horizons program; they see this as federal
involvement that, often, goes against their own action. There are
fields of activity where the action of the federal government may
go directly against the action of the provinces, and it is very
difficult to understand exactly what the federal government's
objective is, in that regard.
There are other fields of activity. For instance the fight against
AIDS and drug enforcement. In the past, there were different
approaches according to different governments. The federal
government might prefer a more punitive approach. The provincial
government might prefer an approach that will correct behaviour
patterns. In the case of young offenders, for example, we have seen
1758
provincial governments-the Quebec government, among
others-put in place systems such as the Direction de la protection
de la jeunesse, and different sectors where crime has been greatly
reduced in Quebec. This has a direct link with to the health issue.
If the federal government chooses a totally differing line of
action, then it is a disservice to the people, and services are not as
efficient as possible.
(1355)
In conclusion, I think that, in this era of dwindling financial
resources that calls for very wise choices, the federal
government-instead of creating a department like the Department
of Health and meddling in areas of provincial jurisdiction-should
consider withdrawing from health care and transferring the money
to the provinces so that each of them can provide services that meet
the needs of the people.
A province with a widely scattered or a sizeable rural population
and one with large urban centres can make very different health
choices. It might be unwise to try to impose the same standards on
both.
This is also directly linked to the provinces' respective policies
regarding development and other matters. Health is not simply a
matter of spending money on drugs. It is the result of the actions
taken by the various stakeholders in society.
I think that, in the past, the federal government's actions in the
area of health, because of the amount of money available, led to the
development of some worthwhile programs. Today, however, its
attempt to impose very high standards while at the same time
reducing the amount transferred to the provinces so they can
provide these services puts people before a difficult choice, as the
federal government will be assessed on the basis of its programs.
People put pressure on the governments to develop programs
against family violence, for instance. Yet, the provinces, which are
responsible in this area, cannot afford to take action, because the
federal government does not give them the means to do so.
Taxpayers are stretched to the limit. In the end, people are in no
position to assess the quality of health care. They tend to blame the
government providing the services, when the cuts are made by the
government that continues to collect the taxes without providing
the expected services.
[English]
The Speaker: It being almost 2 p.m., we will proceed to
Statements by Members. I know full well the member for Calgary
Centre is itching to get to his feet, and he will be the first speaker
when we resume.
1758
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to 36 young Canadians who are
recipients of the seventh annual YTV Achievement Awards and to
welcome them to the national capital region.
These outstanding young achievers were chosen from among
1,500 nominees across the country. Each one has an incredible
story to tell. Some have been recognized for their bravery, others
for their public service or even their entrepreneurial skills. Among
their numbers are writers, visual artists, dancers, musicians,
singers, actors, athletes, but all have been recognized by the YTV
Achievement Awards for these talents.
As a member of Parliament for Saskatchewan, I offer my
congratulations to all these young Canadians, with a special tip of
the hat to Mr. Shane Cuddington, 17 years old from Manor,
Saskatchewan, a constituent of my friend and colleague, the
member for Souris-Moose Mountain.
Shane has been recognized for his entrepreneurial skills, having
started a landscaping business providing an ever increasing and
more specialized variety of services to some 200 clients.
Shane will be among the award winners at the YTV awards to be
broadcast live on Sunday, April 28 from Toronto.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as the
member for Trois-Rivières, I would like to pay tribute to the
Chavigny Jazz V band, from École secondaire Chavigny of
Trois-Rivières-Ouest, which won many awards last March at the
All American Music Festival, a North American competition
which was held in Orlando, Florida, and in which approximately 20
bands took part.
Chavigny Jazz V won first prize in the jazz band category and
also won first prize overall. The band's musical director, Michelle
Bourassa, was awarded the title of best musical director.
(1400)
This success is the result of five years of efforts, during which
Chavigny Jazz V consistently beat the competition in Quebec.
1759
Congratulations to the 20 member band, to Mrs. Bourassa and
to the parents without whose dedication this great
accomplishment, which is an honour to all Quebecers, would not
have been possible.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last year the Deputy Prime Minister proposed an
endangered species act. She claimed it would help prevent
Canadian species from becoming extinct. The difficulty is that the
proposal only covered 4 per cent of all of Canada's land and it
failed to consider the most important aspect, species habitat.
Habitat protection must be the cornerstone of any endangered
species legislation. There is no other way.
Last Thursday, 16 new species were added to Canada's growing
list of species at risk. Canada's new environment minister wants to
make us believe that his government is working toward sustainable
development except his words are meaningless unless he can
assure Canadians that a new endangered species act will stop
further species from becoming extinct.
Today is Earth Day, a day first conceived by environmentalist
John McConnell who said that such a day is needed to ``celebrate
the wonder of life on our planet.''
The minister should proceed carefully to preserve the many
wonders of life in our country.
* * *
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today Canadians
celebrate Earth Day with tree plantings and environmental events
across our vast country. More than ever before we must as
individuals and as a country take responsibility to preserve our
planet for future generations.
Allow me to present Erie riding's must list. We must work
together to prevent toxic chemicals from entering our air, soil and
water resources and to eliminate pollution of every nature
everywhere. We must protect our ocean habitats and fish stocks.
We must harvest our forests prudently taking care to preserve old
growth areas. We must undertake extraction of our mining
resources with minimal effect on our fragile ecosystem. We must
take all measures necessary to protect our endangered plants and
animals. We must use our energy sources wisely and efficiently.
Finally, we must contribute to an international plan to reduce
global warming.
We have so much to do and so little time. I urge all Canadians to
make every day Earth Day.
Mr. Elijah Harper (Churchill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week
Archbishop Desmond Tutu opened hearings of the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission which was mandated by the bill
entitled ``Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation'' under
the democratic Government of South Africa headed by President
Nelson Mandela.
The purpose of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is to
look into the gross human rights violations and atrocities in that
country, not in search of vengeance but in search of truth,
forgiveness and reconciliation. This is not easy work. This was
demonstrated by the painful testimony of torture and abuse the
commission heard last week.
Last month in Cape Town I had the honour of meeting with
Archbishop Tutu. I presented to him the statement of principles and
priorities and the reconciliation proclamation that were adopted by
the Sacred Assembly held last December in Hull, Quebec.
I hope all Canadians will be inspired by the courage of the South
African people.
* * *
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
Saturday, April 20 a tornado touched down in my riding of
Bruce-Grey. It struck the areas around Williamsford, Holland
Centre and Walters Falls. The tornado demolished homes and
destroyed property. My deepest sympathies go to the people who
suffered property loss or personal injury. Thankfully, no one was
killed.
I want to take the opportunity to console those who suffered loss
and to pay tribute to those who have volunteered their efforts.
Disasters often test the mettle and spirit of a community. I am
proud to say that the people of Bruce-Grey have responded
generously to those who have suffered damage. I want to recognize
members of the Mennonite community who once again have
displayed through their actions the true meaning of community
spirit.
The damage caused by the tornado though severe is temporary.
The goodwill and the strength and character of the people of
Bruce-Grey in helping out those in need is an enduring quality of
people in my riding.
* * *
(1405 )
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this weekend I
travelled to three provinces talking to Canadians about building a
better future and overcoming the threats to our collective
prosperity. We also discussed the cost of Canada's most important
social programs. For example, it costs 37 billion federal dollars to
keep
1760
our health care and education systems going and to provide
benefits for senior citizens.
This year interest payments on the massive federal debt dwarfed
the cost of all these vital programs combined. Interest payments are
at $48 billion and rising. This is a scandal and the federal
government bears full responsibility. The current government has
added $100 billion to our children's debt and this has increased our
annual interest payments by $10 billion per year since the Liberals
took power.
Canadians I talked to realize the biggest threat to our future
prosperity is the interest payments being racked up by the current
government. This government has set no date to balance the books
and is driving Canada into bankruptcy. Shame on the government.
* * *
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, Canada needs urgent action to address the plight of
millions of unemployed and underemployed Canadians who have
been left out and left behind. The jobless figures are a scandal with
1.4 million Canadians out of work and another 800,000 forced to
settle for part time jobs.
The current government shows no sense of urgency. The only
targets the government has set are inflation targets. Canada needs a
serious commitment to attainable targets on income levels,
unemployment rates, job creation and sustainable economic growth
rates.
The government must adopt a twofold strategy which tackles,
not creates, barriers to opportunity for Canadians, including banks
with record profits which do not reinvest in Canadians or our
communities, institutions which think short term, and employers
who fail to train.
The government must use its power to intervene to promote
economic development. What about the red book promise to create
jobs, jobs, jobs? This government needs to answer the urgent need
to get Canadians and Canada working again. The government has a
role to play and it should perform it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, National
Volunteer Week is a time to thank those men and women who
devote time and energy to helping those in need, promoting a good
cause and improving the quality of life in our communities.
Volunteerism is a tradition as old as this country and it has
played a key role in the development of Canadian society. By
celebrating National Volunteer Week, we recognize the important
contribution of today's volunteers. At the same time, by
recognizing them as role models, we are seeking to encourage
tomorrow's volunteers.
Special thanks to all those volunteering their services with the
hundreds of organizations in my riding. In fact, let us salute
volunteers across Canada. They are truly our greatest national
asset.
* * *
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
week the Reform Party came to Manitoba to try to do something
about its declining popularity in that province and elsewhere in
Canada. Indeed, it now has the support of barely 10 per cent of
Canadians, about a 50 per cent decline since the last general
election.
According to a poll conducted by the Reform member for
Edmonton Southwest, 55 per cent of his constituents feel that the
Reform Party is too radical or extremist.
Don Benham, of the Winnipeg Herald wrote, and I quote:
[English]
``Reformers are just as much separatists as Bloc-heads, trapped
in the same narrow view that define people by language and
region''.
[Translation]
This decline in popularity is logical since the Reform Party
continues to reject and to condemn its more stable and moderate
members, such as the members for Calgary Southeast and Calgary
Centre.
The Reform Party is bound to fail because it insists on acting like
a regional party frozen in the past and incapable of contributing to
unity-
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The
member for Saint-Denis has the floor.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
harsh realities of terrorism were once again brought home last
week when a Canadian was among the 18 tourists who were
massacred by a gunman outside their hotel in Cairo.
1761
[Translation]
This tragic event reminds us that no one is safe from terrorist
acts. Canada must continue to play a major role in the promotion of
peace and to voice its opposition to terrorist acts.
[English]
I wish to express my deepest condolences to the family and
relatives of Nick Petrou from London, Ontario as well as to the
Greek government and the families of the 17 Greek citizens who
were also among the victims of this tragic incident.
Canadians will mourn the loss of these innocent victims.
Terrorism in any form must be condemned and punished.
* * *
(1410)
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to point out that today is Earth Day, an event celebrated
throughout the world and whose theme this year is health.
We have all learned at our expense that our health and that of our
children are inextricably linked to the quality of the environment
that surrounds us. Urban pollution, the presence of heavy metals in
water and the thinning of the ozone layer are only a few of the
problems that affect our lives.
We must all realize that government regulations, laws and
policies alone will not ensure the sustainable development of our
economy and of our society.
Each person, community and business must undergo a change of
attitude in order to stop jeopardizing the health of future
generations. Each has the means to act quickly. It is up to us to
make good on our commitments.
* * *
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed
that the government would not recognize my home province as a
distinct society.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs wants to call my dear
province of Saskatchewan ``the principal homeland of the English,
Mennonite and Ukrainian fact in Canada''. I reject this notion as it
goes against the legitimate aspirations and traditional claims of
people where I come from.
With our rusty four wheel drive pick-ups, our ``John Deere''
baseball caps, our muddy boots and our bumper stickers that say
``Damn Government'', we are obviously the most distinct society
in Canada and we want to be recognized as such.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
Thursday I attended a public meeting in my riding of
Parkdale-High Park regarding the placement of pedophile Bobby
Oatway in the Keele Street Correctional Centre.
Oatway, a third term federal offender sentenced 10 years for
sexual assaults including rape, indecent assault, buggery and
bestiality, was brought into our community from British Columbia
with no prior consultation with the Citizens Advisory Committee.
In fact there was no knowledge of his relocation from B.C. to our
community until after his placement.
My constituents are enraged that this individual who has
committed atrocious crimes against young children has been
placed in a minimum security facility that is close to five
elementary schools. Like any parent in this House given similar
circumstances, these parents are concerned about their children's
safety and the potential denial of these children's basic right to life.
My constituents will continue to hold rallies every Thursday at
the facility until there is action from all levels of government to
ensure the safety of their children.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
week is National Volunteer Week. According to a study carried out
in August 1994 by a polling firm for the Fédération des centres
d'action bénévole du Québec, almost 64 per cent of the population
of Quebec did some volunteer work during the last 12 months.
Therefore, the federation urges governments, institutions and
large companies to become more attuned to the financial needs of
volunteer organizations and strongly encourages them to support
volunteer work.
The Bloc Quebecois considers most unfortunate the
government's decision to cut $1.5 million from grants to
community organizations. Grants to women's groups have dropped
by 31 per cent in the last 6 years, and the money saved may have
gone to more crucial budgets, like the budget of the Council for
Canadian Unity or the free flags program.
1762
[English]
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on the occasion of National Volunteer Week I rise today to
thank the millions of volunteers working in communities across the
country.
During National Volunteer Week we honour people like my
constituents, Marion White and Elspeth Hogg, recent recipients of
the Canada Volunteer Award. These constituents and countless
other Canadians selflessly donate time and energy to people in
need.
Over 13 million Canadians are volunteers and collectively we
donate services valued at over $16 billion. Our communities thrive
because of these generous people, because here in Canada we care
about our neighbours and are willing to work hard for the sake of
our communities.
(1415)
In honour of National Volunteer Week, I thank the many many
constituents in my riding who give so freely of their time to
hospitals, firehalls, schools and service clubs.
Volunteering is about commitment and caring. It is about the
power of each one of us to make our world a better place. To all
volunteers everywhere I offer my congratulations.
_____________________________________________
1762
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we learned a lot in the papers over the weekend about the
Canadian army's actions in the Somalia scandal. We learn in fact a
lot more from the papers than we do from the minister in this
House.
On April 16, he said, and I quote: ``This question casts
aspersions on the Armed Forces and on the men and women who
serve each day with distinction both at home and abroad.
Everyone's reputation is being tarnished by incidents that occurred
three years ago''.
How could the Minister of National Defence talk in the House
about events that happened three years ago, when he knew as he
was making this statement here, following an investigation by
military police, that documents were being illegally destroyed and
falsified up to last September?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member is extending the type of questioning we heard last week.
He deals with the question of the public affairs branch and the
question of documentation.
As the hon. member knows, the Somalia commission will be
commencing hearings on Wednesday on this problem. All of the
answers the hon. member wants will be forthcoming at the
commission.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister has responsibilities. He must exercise these
responsibilities in this House when questions are put to him on
behalf of Canadians who want to know what is happening. He
cannot hide behind a committee, when he already knows the
answers.
On April 15, the Prime Minister said that the events under
investigation took place under another government. Clearly, the
Prime Minister had not been informed by the Minister of National
Defence that an investigation had been conducted within the army
and that despicable events were known to have gone on until
September.
Why did the Minister of National Defence not inform his Prime
Minister that an investigation by the military police had already
revealed orders had been given, under his command, to destroy and
falsify documents, up to last September? Why did he hide this from
his Prime Minister?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly I carried
out my responsibilities by setting up the commission of inquiry on
Somalia. I would ask the hon. member to await the commission's
deliberations. Once these deliberations are over, he will have all the
answers he and the people of Canada want.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, a commission of inquiry is usually called upon to
investigate events of the past that continue to take place in the
Canadian army. Events have occurred under the responsibility of
the minister that warrant his action. The minister cannot hide
behind a commission letting it assume his responsibilities for him.
Things are happening right now.
How has the minister been able to hide behind the commission
since the start of this affair saying that all issues would be
examined, when he knew the identity of the military personnel who
gave the orders to falsify and hide documents, officers who remain
in positions of responsibility and whom he has not yet sanctioned
as his responsibilities would require him to do?
1763
(1420)
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that the
hon. member read the terms of reference of the commission of
inquiry on Somalia.
In the terms of reference, which I quoted from last week, there
were the terms ``cover-up'', ``missing documents'' and ``tampering
of documents''. This terminology was used in the original terms of
reference.
In specific reply to the hon. member's question, the commission
has determined that even though the mandate of the commission
was to November 28, 1994, when it comes to documentation and
the allegations of tampering, destruction or cover-up, the
commission feels it can go beyond that timeframe.
If the hon. member has some concerns about other events that
did not take place in the watch of the other government, all this will
be under the eye of the commission. It will get to the answers the
people of Canada expect and which they will receive.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it appears that the commission members are aware that
some documents have been destroyed. It also appears that the
military police are aware that some documents have been
destroyed. It seems that the public relations office, presumably
reporting to the minister-there is perhaps a minister in that
department somewhere-is also aware that some documents have
been destroyed. It would appear the minister is the only one not
aware. There was no video this time, so he knows nothing.
Can the minister tell us whether or not he has seen the military
police report stating that documents were destroyed? Has he or has
he not seen it? A very simple question.
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been
selective readings from what I suppose is the military police
document which will be part of the evidence presented this
Wednesday at the inquiry.
The inquiry should be allowed to table that report, have it made
public, let everyone read it and come to their own conclusions,
rather than my selectively responding to quotes from a report,
whether from that report or another document, in the House of
Commons.
The whole point of creating the inquiry was to allow a
thoughtful, orderly process with due regard to the legal rights of
individuals, all to be conducted in an impartial setting away from
the partisanship of the House of Commons. It was the right thing to
do. It was what this party called for in opposition. We have
delivered on that commitment.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if I understand correctly, the military police are
investigating the events of June, July, August and September 1995.
The minister refuses to deal with it, washes his hands of it, passes
the buck to commission members. So much for his version.
I have a very simple question. Is the minister telling us that, in
the Canadian armed forces, you can do anything you want without
the minister dealing with it, that it will just be handed over to
commission after commission after commission? Is that what his
attitude is?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question
really makes sense. The hon. member will get all the answers to the
questions he posed today and the questions in the House in the last
couple of weeks.
If they are patient while the commission does its work, there will
be a subset of hearings on the documentation issue beginning
Wednesday. Other things will be revealed and other testimony will
be given over the coming months with respect to the general
incidents that occurred in Somalia.
Everything, I assure members, will be answered. That is why the
terms of reference were crafted in that way. No one outside of
selected members of the opposition have criticized the terms of
reference. Most people realize they are broad, that they are
all-encompassing and that they will get at the truth.
The government wants to get at the truth. Canadians want to get
at the truth.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
chapter 6 of the red book, ``Governing with Integrity'', the Liberals
promised to restore the quality of our democratic institutions, end
arrogance in political leadership and improve their accountability
with Canadian voters. That rings pretty hollow today.
In the last election the Liberals campaigned on a promise to kill,
scrap and abolish the GST. They know it. The voters of
York-South Weston, the voters of Broadview-Greenwood and in
fact all Canadians know it.
1764
(1425 )
How many billions of dollars is the Prime Minister willing to
give to the Atlantic Liberal provinces and how may of his own MPs
is he willing to sacrifice to come across on his broken GST
promise?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, page 22 of the red book is very clear:
A Liberal government will replace the GST with a system that generates
equivalent revenues, is fairer to the consumers and to small business, minimizes
disruption to small business, and promotes federal-provincial fiscal
co-operation and harmonization.
That is exactly what the Minister of Finance is trying to do at this
time.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
have seen on parallel here that instead of replacing the GST he will
harmonize it. He is now replacing MPs. It is as simple as that. He
has gone back on a promise and those people who campaigned in
the last election know full when what they campaigned on.
By his heavy handed actions today, the Prime Minister has
shown complete disregard for the democratic process and that his
precious red book means absolutely precious little. The Prime
Minister has placed party and politics ahead of principles and
people. The message is clear. If you want to keep your election
promises, you cannot do it in the Liberal caucus.
Is it really worth it? Is saving face on the broken GST promise
worth the billions the government plans to spend on
harmonization? It is worth punishing MPs whose only crime is
standing up for their constituents?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, every Liberal MP campaigned on the red book. It is very
clear this phrase is part of the red book and everybody knew it. It is
exactly what we are doing at this time.
I remember the days when the member was in the House
advocating and supporting the concept of the GST and flip-flopped
a couple of times. We said it. We put it in writing and it is very
clear.
Some members of Parliament voted against the government on
some bills. We have acted accordingly. When a member of
Parliament clearly votes non-confidence in the government it is
because he does not want to support the government. He wants to
be independent and he will sit as an independent member of
Parliament. I wish him good luck getting elected as an independent
candidate.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, with all
respect and in supporting the member for York South-Weston, he
did not want to support the government. ``You got that right'' is
what he would say to the government and to the Canadian people.
He knew what he had campaigned on in 1993.
The Deputy Prime Minister, who campaigned to resign if the
GST were not scrapped, is still here. The Liberal member for York
South-Weston, who was merely living up to the campaign
promises in the red book, got the boot.
The government can hide the GST. It can spend billions trying to
harmonize the GST. It can ditch all the anti-GST Liberals it wants.
However, Canadians will not be fooled. They know these people
campaigned on scrapping, abolishing and killing the GST.
Why does the Prime Minister not simply admit he has no
intention of keeping his election promise? Why does he not simply
tell Canadians not to believe a word they read in the red book?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I ask the hon. member to read the promises. She should
listen:
A Liberal government will replace the GST with a system that generates
equivalent revenues, is fairer to the consumers and to small business, minimizes
disruption to small business, and promotes federal-provincial fiscal
co-operation and harmonization.
That is exactly what the Minister of Finance is doing at this time.
We are keeping our promises. That is why the member is so
frustrated.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, last week the Minister of Finance did not deny that
replacing provincial sales taxes and the GST with a new GST
hidden in the sales price would involve federal compensation of $1
billion to the Atlantic provinces, to come out of the pockets of all
Canadians.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister
confirm that the agreement his government is preparing to
announce with the Atlantic provinces does not constitute the
removal of the GST as he had promised, but an expensive
camouflage of a new 15 per cent GST in the price of goods and
services?
(1430)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have just read the Liberal Party's promise in the red book
twice. I do not need to repeat it. We said that we wanted to
harmonize with the provincial governments so that there would be
a single tax, so that businesses had only one sales tax report to do,
and so that we would have a system that was the same for all
Canadians, simplifying everyone's operations. That is exactly what
the Minister of Finance is in the process of doing.
1765
When the agreements are concluded, the Minister of Finance
will have no trouble expressing himself, and indeed is rarely hard
put to do so in this House.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to refresh the Prime Minister's memory ever
so slightly. He said, during the 1995 election campaign, that he
would abolish the GST. He made a solemn promise to abolish the
GST and, as with the numerous defence department scandals, we
have it on tape.
Not only is the Prime Minister telling us that he will not abolish
the GST, but he is confirming that by hiding the new GST in the
price of goods, the federal government will more easily be able to
increase it, unbeknownst to the public. Is that correct?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, once again, they are trying to scare people. It is not a
question of increasing the GST. It is a question of changing the
GST, of putting in place a national tax that will apply to everyone.
There will be more work to do outside Quebec, because the tax is
already harmonized in Quebec.
Right now, the Minister of Finance wants the same taxation level
for all Canadians who pay a federal and provincial tax, and that is
what he is working out with the provincial governments, who will,
over the years, have to forgo a certain amount of revenue. As
always, as we have done in other cases, we will help the provincial
governments, especially those having the most trouble, the poorest
provinces, to adapt to the new national system.
It is a question of being fair to all Canadians and that is what we
are aiming for: a clear, simple and fair system for everyone.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is
absolutely unbelievable. By sacrificing a caucus member because
he had the nerve to hold the Prime Minister accountable for his own
promise to kill the GST, the Prime Minister has made a mockery of
parliamentary democracy and a mockery of this place.
The Prime Minister has betrayed the member for York
South-Weston, who was only attempting to hold him accountable
and give him a chance to fulfil his promises and the principles he
ran on and won the election on. That is a fact.
Why has the Prime Minister abandoned the promise to bring
about parliamentary reform?
The Speaker: A little while ago I asked all hon. members to
please direct their questions to the administrative responsibilities
of the minister or ministers involved.
In my view the way this question is framed, we are dealing with
party matters as opposed to government matters.
I will permit the hon. member to rephrase the question, not the
preamble, and put his question to whomever he likes.
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, why has the Prime Minister
flagrantly broken his promise to bring about parliamentary reform?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, for the first time when private members' bills come
before the House we are allowing ministers and members of our
party to vote the way they want. That has never happened before in
the history of Parliament. It is working. It is a reform that has been
appreciated but not noted.
Unlike the member, I have been here for a few years and it is a
big departure from what existed before. Members of Parliament
voted on private members' bills according to the party line. We
have given that freedom. It is a step in the right direction.
(1435)
However, we live in a system in which we have a responsible
government. When the government is defeated on a question of
confidence it has no choice but to call an election. When it is a
matter of voting non-confidence in the government, it is a question
that one does not belong to the party that forms the government.
That is all.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister would not know parliamentary democracy if he
grabbed it by the throat. That is a fact.
A few years ago former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney kicked
an MP out of caucus for voting according to their constituents'
wishes. At that time the current Prime Minister welcomed that
principled member into his own caucus. What a great irony. The
Prime Minister said they would be a lot better than the hated Tories.
What a farce that turned out to be.
Why oh why is the Prime Minister breaking his promise on the
GST and parliamentary reform and why is it not the Deputy Prime
Minister being forced to resign instead of the member for York
South-Weston?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my oh my, this member of Parliament cannot read four
lines of the red book. I repeat for him: ``A Liberal government-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): He does not want me to repeat
it. He has heard it enough. Fine. Read the red book. This is the
commitment of this party and we are delivering on it.
1766
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as
the government denies the endemic assimilation of francophones
outside Quebec, the future of four francophone schools in Ottawa is
at stake for lack of students. They include the école Sainte-Anne,
the last remaining francophone primary school in Lower Town, a
francophone bastion in Canada's capital.
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. When will
the minister stop denying the problem of the assimilation of
francophones in Canada, which leads to the disappearance of their
most vital institutions, such as the last primary school in Lower
Town?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would first like to point
out our interest at the hon. member's concern over education. This
goes against the policy of his party, which says that education is a
provincial matter.
I would first like to point out there are 60 schools under the
school board for Ottawa-Carleton, including the one my daughter
attends, along with école Gaston-Vincent, école Baribeau, école
Cadieux, école des Pins, école des Villageois, école des Voyageurs,
that are French language schools, and not immersion. Four of them
are currently threatened with closure because of budget cuts.
Unfortunately, the Government of Ontario followed the example
of the Government of Quebec, which announced cuts of $300
million in education on March 27. These cuts by the premier of
Quebec are unfortunate. We also find most unfortunate the cuts
made by the Government of Ontario, but we respect its jurisdiction
over education, which is, as the Bloc Quebecois policy provides, a
matter of provincial jurisdiction.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
federal government has interfered in provincial matters frequently
and on a number of issues, but the minister is denying the
assimilation of francophones in Canada in her response, and no one
dare deny this assimilation when it is occurring at the rate of 30 per
cent in the Canada's capital.
We must have francophone schools, but Sainte-Anne is closing.
It is a fact that English predominates in the federal public service.
Francophones must use English in the public service.
(1440)
Will the minister acknowledge that her government is therefore
practicing a policy of assimilation leading to the disappearance of
the francophone community in the heart of the nation's capital?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to his
question, I told the member that there are currently 60 French
language schools in the Ottawa-Carleton region. Thirty years ago,
there was no francophone school board in Ottawa-Carleton.
His questions are almost as logical as his comments today-the
member is weeping crocodile tears. Assimilation is about as logical
as the comment: ``One of the reasons I became a sovereignist was
because of the threat of assimilation''.
Does he really think that a policy of separating francophones in
Quebec from those in the rest of Canada will keep the country
bilingual? The exact opposite is true. This is why we have 23
francophone members and senators from outside Quebec here. This
is why Canada is on its way to becoming a country for everyone.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
opposition the Liberals promised to kill, scrap and abolish the GST
because it was a bad tax. The Prime Minister knows there are a lot
of quotes to prove that.
In government the Liberals are proposing to spend $1 billion to
hide this bad tax, to reward with federal kickbacks those Liberal
governments that help to hide it, to charge off the billion dollar cost
to the seven provinces that do not want it, and finally to punish
those MPs that stand in the way of hiding it by dismissal from
caucus because they remind the government of its election
promise.
Is the Prime Minister now satisfied that by his disciplinary
actions he has muzzled other Liberal backbenchers to keep silent
on his government's GST promise?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this party had a program and probably all the candidates
read it before they ran. If they had stopped on page 22 they would
have seen that we were talking about simplification and
harmonization. That is what is written.
Four provincial governments have opted for harmonization. The
first government was Quebec. Now there are three more and the
others are looking into it.
I can read to the hon. member what the Regina Leader Post is
recommending to the Saskatchewan government. It states:
``-would be well advised to rethink its opposition to a harmonized
tax. Its concerns are not insurmountable, nor do they outweigh the
potential benefits of harmonization, such as reduction in the cost of
doing business and operating government in Saskatchewan, thus
1767
improving the business climate and, in the long run, likely
generate new jobs and revenue sources''.
That is the opinion of a very important newspaper in
Saskatchewan. That makes a lot of sense. A lot of people will find
that our approach is a very good one.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, quote: ``I
want the tax dead''. That was the Liberal leader in opposition, the
right hon. Prime Minister. That appeared in the Montreal Gazette
of September 27, 1990.
Now that the Prime Minister has made an example out of the
member for York South-Weston in order to keep the rest of his
caucus in line, let me remind him of another promise which he and
his party made in opposition.
Liberal MPs opposed taxing reading material when the GST was
imposed by the Tories. They promised to remove the tax on books.
Now they are proposing double digit taxation on reading with their
piecemeal, half-hearted effort with three Atlantic provinces on
harmonization.
When will the Liberal government meet this promise? Where is
the Prime Minister on this promise?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would repeat to the hon. member that at the time we
opposed the GST and we still oppose it. We argued in this House
that it would be two systems of taxes with two different types of
reports. It is very complicated for the consumers and for the the
business people who had to report. There would be two sets of
books, two sets of inspectors and so on.
(1445)
We argued against this complication in the tax system. We
always talked about harmonization. At the time of the election we
put it in writing on page 22 of the red book. It is very easy to verify
and we stand by what is written in the red book.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
In a recent study, the official languages commissioner concluded
that anglophone members of the armed forces based in Bagotville
had access to impeccable services in their own language, whereas
French speaking soldiers based in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, were
deprived of essential services in French such as health care and
education.
Will the Minister of National Defence follow up on the
commissioner's recommendation and establish a detailed plan to
meet the needs of francophone members of the armed forces in
Moose Jaw before May 31, 1996?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are giving
serious consideration to the commissioner's recommendations. We
hope to be able to establish the same standards across the country.
[English]
I have visited Bagotville and I would certainly concur with what
the hon. member said in terms of the availability of standards
affecting both linguistic groups and services.
I have also visited the Moose Jaw base in western Canada and I
have not been directly informed of some of the things of which the
commissioner apparently has been made aware.
We try to make sure that no matter what language is spoken by
members of the forces that obviously they are entitled to all of the
services, priorities and prerequisites that all Canadians have no
matter what language they speak. If improvements have to be made
we will certainly put them in place.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is really unfortunate that, every time something goes
wrong, this minister is always the last to know about it. There have
been six complaints in Moose Jaw. I find it strange that when he
went to Bagotville, he was told that everything was fine for
anglophones but when he went to Moose Jaw, he was not told about
the difficult situation faced by francophones there. I will not repeat
the speech made by my colleague about assimilation, but that is
how it happens, especially when a minister does not even care
about the situation of the minority in Saskatchewan.
I do not want a vague answer to my question, I want a straight
answer. Does the minister intend to ensure that francophone
members of the armed forces in Moose Jaw have access to a French
school as soon as possible?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously the
member has not heard my answer. I am very concerned about the
problems of access to services in both official languages across the
country.
[English]
With respect to education services, as the hon. member knows,
under agreements that have been coming into effect that were
signed by the previous government, the Department of National
Defence is now handing over education to the various provinces.
When we do this we try to ensure that linguistic minorities are dealt
with fairly.
1768
As I said in the earlier response, we are looking for
improvements. I assure the hon. member we will make those
improvements so she will be satisfied.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry.
My constituents informed me of their frustrations with the
services they are getting from the signal providers for their dish
antenna systems.
Could the Minister assure my constituents that the problem with
satellite dishes will be solved without them having to pay a lot
more money?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can tell my colleague that the technology used to have
provide broadcasting services changes very rapidly at the present
time. Most service providers are now switching to digital
technology, which does not work with existing satellite dishes.
(1450)
There might be a potential problem for consumers. The sale of
satellite dishes, used to receive television signals, is not regulated
by the federal government. With any high technology equipment,
consumers must examine their options very carefully before they
buy. This is very important.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
when the GST was introduced by the Tories in 1990, the Liberals of
the day argued for a free vote. They said that the Prime Minister,
Brian Mulroney, had promised more free votes in the House of
Commons. The Tories said that they could not allow a free vote
because it was a money measure. Of course the Liberals were
outraged, or they feigned outrage, at this kind of response.
The current Prime Minister will not allow a free vote on another
similar measure, and he kicks people out of the caucus.
Many Canadians, especially one from York South-Weston,
would like to know the answer to this question: Since the Liberals
deplored this kind of iron-fisted discipline while in opposition,
what happened to them when they formed the government?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have dozens of free votes in the House of Commons
that did not exist before.
Mr. Abbott: No, you do not; not one free vote.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): We have dozens of free votes in
the House of Commons.
When a bill is by a private member, it is a bill presented to the
Parliament of Canada. These bills will change the laws of Canada.
We have accepted a lot of free votes, even with ministers splitting
on some votes. We have never seen that before.
I am satisfied with the experiment. I think it was good and did
not cause too many problems. We might have them on other
occasions. We had free votes before on capital punishment and
abortion. We had free votes on problems of morality or moral
decisions.
When it is a question of confidence in the government,
government members have to support the government which has
helped them to get elected.
The Speaker: May I encourage you both when a question is
being asked and when an answer is being given because it is a bit
difficult for me to hear all the words. I know you will co-operate by
letting me hear both the question and the answer.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
when the current Deputy Speaker was kicked out of the Tory caucus
for voting against the party line, he said that the Conservative Party
was so undemocratic that it would make General Noriega blush.
This Liberal government promised Canadians that if it was
elected it would be different, that Canadians would finally get MPs
who were free to represent the wishes of the constituents that
elected them. Why did the Liberals lie to Canadians?
The Speaker: I would like the hon. member to withdraw the
word lie.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, why did the government misinform the
Canadian people?
The Speaker: Very simply I would like you to please withdraw
the word lie.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that word. Is it true that the
government's idea of a free vote is that it is free as long as the
dictatorial Liberal Party says it is free?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when it is a confidence vote in the government, it is a
confidence vote in the government. It was discussed in caucus last
Wednesday and the views of the member were clear.
The member for York South-Weston had a bill in the House on
which we permitted a free vote. However, a question of confidence
1769
in the government is something else. He could have waited and on a
specific bill he could have voted against the government.
(1455 )
When it is a lack of confidence in the whole program of the
government, it is because you do not belong to that government any
more.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
The RCMP external review committee is responsible for hearing
appeals for certain types of grievances filed by regular or civilian
members of the RCMP against the senior management this police
force. The committee, chaired since 1990 by Jennifer Lynch, is the
only legal recourse offered to members of the RCMP for an
independent hearing.
Can the Prime Minister explain why the RCMP granted Mrs
Lynch a one year contract worth $176,000, to review the present
grievance system? Does the Prime Minister not agree that Mrs.
Lynch is in fact in conflict of interest since, on the one hand, she
hears grievances against the senior management of the RCMP and,
on the other, she has a contract with the senior management?
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we know, the Solicitor
General is in hospital this week. I will take note of the hon.
member's question and I will provide him with an answer at a later
date.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
people across Canada are most disturbed with the Prime Minister's
lack of parliamentary democracy in this House.
If MPs cannot speak out on important issues without being
punished, Canada is in serious trouble. Remember, if the GST is
not scrapped, the Deputy Prime Minister will resign. My question,
therefore, is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister sit there in all good
conscience after having gone back on her word while a long-time
colleague of hers is made a scapegoat and hung out to dry while
standing up for his principles?
The Speaker: I am trying to tie that into the administrative
responsibilities of members. If the Prime Minister would like to
answer, I will permit him to do so.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, every member has a chance to express his or her views on
everything. However, when it comes to non-confidence in the
government, it is a very clear statement that they do not support the
government.
Coming from rural Quebec, I have to explain to the hon. member
who was born in Nova Scotia that I am here defending the British
parliamentary system which has existed for a long time. A vote of
confidence in the government is not the same thing as other votes.
Mr. Abbott: They have free votes.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): That government has free votes.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): We have had more free votes
here. We do not need a lesson on that score from the Reform Party.
Miss Grey: You sound like Mulroney.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): You are an embarrassment.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): The problem with members of
the Reform Party is that they do not want to know what is a
government because they will never be a government. Having the
responsibility of a government, people can ask my members. They
have had more free votes than ever before in this Parliament.
When somebody wants to exclude himself from the party, he
votes against the government in a motion of confidence. This is a
well known practice, which existed since Parliament was founded
many centuries ago in Britain.
* * *
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.
In 1995, Parliament passed important amendments to the
Employment Equity Act, but these changes will only come into
effect one year after the law's proclamation.
At a committee meeting last Thursday, the human rights
commissioner urged the government to proclaim this law as soon
as possible. When will this employment equity law be proclaimed?
[Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, at the present time, the Department of Human Resources
is drafting the regulations.
(1500)
Next month, the employees of the department will consult with
the parties, the employers' associations, the unions and all other
interested parties about the application of this important legislation
on employment equity. We hope that we will be able to fulfil our
1770
commitment and that, by mid-fall, the draft regulations will be in
force.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): He gets time instead of us.
Mr. Hermanson: Let us be fair in here.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Sherbrooke.
Mr. Charest: My question has to do with the new allegations
relative to the Somalia inquiry, the allegations about papers being
shredded in September 1995. These are very serious allegations
which go right to the heart of an issue of confidence within the
government.
I would like to know from the Prime Minister whether he does
not think at this point, given this serious allegation concerning his
department, that the time has come to ask his minister of defence to
stand aside.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, before replying to the leader of the Progressive
Conservative Party, I would like to remind the member for Fraser
Valley West who did not want the member to get up, about political
democracy and freedom of speech when they want to deny a
member of Parliament the right to speak.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): I will say to the hon. member
for Sherbrooke that for the first time in a very long time, maybe
since I have been around, never has a government had an inquiry
into the operation of the armed forces. It was done on the
recommendation of the Minister of National Defence.
The commission is looking at all aspects of the operation. If
something wrong has been done, the commission will report it. The
reason we have this commission is that this good Minister of
National Defence had the wisdom to recommend the inquiry to the
Government of Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, today we have the pleasure to
welcome in the House a group of young Canadians who have made
a significant contribution to their country.
[English]
They are young men and women who have distinguished
themselves in many fields, some for their musical, athletic or
artistic talent and others for their bravery, entrepreneurial skills,
scientific innovation or commitment to public service or
humanitarian causes. They are young and they have already made a
difference. These young Canadians represent excellence and are
symbols of achievement for Canada.
Please join me in welcoming and congratulating the winners of
the YTV Achievement Awards.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
(1505 )
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister raised in the House the fact that under some
misunderstanding he has about question period and the number of
people who are supposed to ask questions in which order, I think he
purely is trying to put on my shoulders the fact that I did not want
this fellow over here, whoever, to-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: My colleagues, it has been a spirited debate today
on both sides. The hon. member of course does not have a point of
order. I would hope that tomorrow we will be able to take up the
battle again.
_____________________________________________
1770
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both
official languages the government's responses to 21 petitions.
* * *
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is appropriate that we bring the debate back to earth
given that today is Earth Day not only in Canada but across the
entire globe. It is a time when we can hopefully put aside our
differences and unite in pledging ourselves to conserve, to protect
and to renew our planet. The theme of this year's Earth Day
worldwide is ``To Your Health''.
Make no mistake about it, a deteriorating environment does
harm human health. We see it around us manifested in different
ways, in different shades and in different shapes.
1771
I recently returned from the Arctic where I heard daunting
stories of wind driven pollutants and poisons that taint mothers'
milk. Also Environment Canada just finished issuing a sun screen
warning for this coming summer because the ozone layer which
is thinning continues to be a problem of large magnitude. We all
know, in particular those of us who live in large urban centres,
that the air quality is at risk. It is a risk to people, including our
children and to those who suffer from breathing disorders.
The words ``environment'' and ``health'' at the end of the day are
really about the same thing. They are interchangeable and the risks
and stakes are quite high.
It is appropriate also that a United Nations report was just
handed down which said that the pollution of earth's air and water
was getting worse and not better. It warned that a staggering 150
species of plants, animals and fish become extinct every single day.
Imagine the magnitude of that mathematics. Every day as a result
of our unsustainable development the world over we are losing all
those species around the globe. It is staggering. We truly are getting
close to nature's limits which means that yes, it is time that we
collectively changed our ways.
(1510)
Today on Earth Day citizens and communities across our nation
step boldly forward to act as responsible stewards of our natural
heritage, now and for the future. Through these actions we commit
ourselves to conserve nature and we promise to share the benefits
of nature across our regions, across nations and across the
generations.
Canadians fundamentally understand their responsibility to
protect the environmental wonders that are Canada. Communities
all across the country have the ideas, the energy and commitment to
be and act as that first line of defence. We as a national government
are prepared to help in that national exercise through action 21, a
national $10 million annual program that tries to assist local groups
who are trying to reclaim their respective environmental
backyards. Today I have announced the latest round of projects
from this program. About $2.5 million will be going to some 84
groups across Canada all aimed at creating a healthier more
sustainable environment.
These projects include the East Toronto Green Community
Group's efforts to reduce runoff and waste water contamination of
the lower Don River; the Habitat Unlimited Society project to
restore a rearing and spawning habitat for fish populations in
Brierly Brook; and a project by a group southwest of Montreal to
improve the methods of storing pesticides in the rural agricultural
community. These are but a few examples of the innovative
projects led by individual Canadians that are happening in our
nation's neighbourhoods. That is where it must start because if it
does not happen locally, we can talk about our strategies nationally
and internationally but at the end of the day they will not succeed.
Canadians also know we are the custodians of the world's
longest coastline and the stewards of one-fifth of the world's
wilderness, one-fifth of the world's fresh water supply and
one-quarter of our planet's wetlands. Sitting around kitchen tables,
Canadian families and their neighbours have come up with
grassroots ideas to restore and reinvigorate nature for the future.
In P.E.I., 50 volunteers have adopted beaches in order to protect
the endangered piping plover. The Wildlands Park Development
Society in Calgary is revegetating an oil refinery site. Jack Bell, a
senior citizen from Vancouver, started a van pool and now operates
95 vans in order to reduce the emissions from vehicles.
[Translation]
Mayor Guy Leblanc of Trois-Rivières has acted to make his city
bike friendly. In the past two years, volunteers have planted
750,000 native shrubs and trees along the Canadian natural
highway.
[English]
Only a few hours ago I watched as grade 6 students from Rideau
Valley Middle School presented us with projects they have
designed to help clean up the historic waters of the Rideau River
which is simply yards away from the House of Commons.
Grassroots groups and individual Canadians deserve our praise
for their work to restore Canada's natural legacy. They recognize
that nature is central to who we are and what we are not only as
Canadians but as human beings.
Canadians rightfully expect, in fact demand, that national and
international actions match their personal efforts. Canada's
environment is a source of national pride. Canadians want their
national actions on the environmental front lines to also be that
same source of inspiration.
(1515 )
As one step in that direction, I am pleased to announce that every
provincial and territorial government in Canada has joined with the
federal government in signing a statement, a contract to conserve
Canada's biodiversity. This statement is a companion piece to the
Canadian biodiversity strategy released last year. This strategy will
guide all governments in conserving nature and living up to
Canada's global and national obligations.
There are not too many documents on which we can achieve
unanimous agreement these days. However, governments in this
sense have heard the voices of Canadians. Canadians want Canada
to be the world leaders in the use, in the conservation and in the
sharing of the wonders of nature.
1772
On May 6, I will take part in the official opening of the
secretariat of the convention on biological diversity in Montreal.
The selection of Canada to host this UN office is a clear indication
of the kind of trust, confidence and expectation the world places
in Canada.
[Translation]
On Earth Day, we embrace the principle that conserving nature
starts with us. If we want to change the world, we have to start at
home.
[English]
On Earth Day we embrace the principle that conserving nature
starts with us. If we want to change the world we need to start at
home.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today we
celebrate Earth Day. Of course, this day which is dedicated to the
conservation of the earth is also linked to the environment. I
believe that, as parliamentarians, we are willing to pass and enforce
laws to protect the health of the people of Quebec and Canada. We
must protect the environment, otherwise the population will
experience serious air, health and water problems.
The protection of the environment is also a matter of education
and information. I believe that very early on, children must be
informed and taught about the environment, first and foremost at
home, but also in school. We must protect the environment at work
and in our daily lives.
I would encourage school boards do draw up an information and
education plan on environmental protection to make our young
people aware of this very important issue.
I would also encourage municipalities in Quebec and in Canada
to set up environmental protection committees. I would give as an
example the municipality of Baie-Comeau, in my riding, which
created an agency to protect and improve the environment 10 years
ago. The mandate of the agency was and still is to protect the water,
the air and the environment as a whole.
We all know that nowadays, municipalities determine their own
environmental standards. Therefore, federal, provincial and
municipal laws should not overlap if we want to keep inherent costs
at a minimum and avoid conflicting legislation that would impede
proper application and enforcement in some areas.
In Baie-Comeau, in the riding of Charlevoix, a group called the
Corporation d'amélioration et de protection de l'environnement
recycles durable goods. We all know that almost everything can be
recycled now: paper, cardboard, plastics, glass, wood, steel, etc.
That corporation even salvages furniture which it repairs and gives
to underprivileged families.
(1520)
It also collects, repairs, cleans and stores clothing to give it to
needy families or those who have lost their belongings in a fire, for
example. It collects and repairs household appliances that
previously would have ended up in the municipal dump.
Nowadays, many municipalities practice selective collection; in so
doing, they can reduce their sanitary landfill costs. This gives
municipal governments a chance to reduce their costs for sanitary
landfills.
You know that today everything is recyclable. I would even say
that municipal governments would be well-advised to have their
own selective pick-up and their own sorting facilities. This would
even protect waterways. Certain Quebec waterways flow into the
St. Lawrence River. We know that previously all municipal
governments where discharging their waste into the waterways
which, eventually, reached the St. Lawrence. At one time, the St.
Lawrence River was considered one of the largest open air septic
tanks in the world. Yet, some municipal governments are drawing
their drinking water from that same river.
Nevertheless, I want to congratulate the minister. Action 21,
although a very limited program, is a start. It will allow some 84
projects, totalling some $2.4 million, for the improvement of the
environment. I urge all levels of government-federal, provincial
and municipal-to do the same.
To conclude, as parliamentary assistant to the hon. member for
Laurentides, my job is very important because the environment is
the way of the future. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let us celebrate
together this Earth Day.
[English]
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make a response to the
environment minister's statement this afternoon. The minister has
a great deal to clean up following the tenure of the Deputy Prime
Minister, so what better day for the minister to start than Earth Day.
When former American President Gerald Ford proclaimed this
day Earth Day he stated: ``The earth will continue to regenerate its
life sources only as long as we and all the peoples of the world do
our part to conserve its natural resources. It is a responsibility
which every human being shares. Through voluntary action each of
us can join in building a productive land in harmony with nature''.
There is no question that a day such as Earth Day is beneficial to
heighten the awareness of the problems with our environment.
However, this one day should not be the only day when we bend
down to pick up the litter scattered over our streets, sidewalks and
yards. The three Rs are for everyday in our communities.
1773
At the federal level Canadians should be able to look at the
actions of the minister and be confident that his actions will be
beneficial to help keep our air, land and water very clean. We
should not have to worry but we do worry when we look at the
record left by the former Minister of the Environment and the
plans set out by the current minister.
When I became the Reform caucus environmental critic I found
myself dealing with a number of issues such as lifting the Irving
Whale, the toxic waste mess of Sydney Tar Ponds and the gasoline
additive MMT. To date the Irving Whale remains at the bottom on
the Atlantic ocean off the coast of Prince Edward Island, leaking
bunker C oil and PCBs.
The Sydney Tar Ponds site is far from being cleaned up since
more hot spots of PCBs have been found. The Irving Whale has
cost taxpayers $18.7 million, and still nothing to show for it. The
Sydney Tar Ponds site clean-up has cost taxpayers more than $55
million with only 90 tonnes of the 700,000 tonnes incinerated.
With respect to the ban on the gasoline additive MMT, the
minister still has no proof that MMT is harmful to the onboard
diagnostic systems of automobiles. The issue is not environmental,
it is political.
(1525)
The west coast fishery is at risk. The minister has a role. We are
monitoring. May he have courage to act.
In the minister's speech he made reference to the uncontrollable
smog in urban areas and how it is a risk for children. If the minister
is so concerned with smog, why would he want to ban the use of
MMT in gasoline when even his own officials admit that MMT
reduces NOx emissions, one of the greatest contributors to urban
smog?
It seems the government's environment ministers make
decisions based on what they think will affect their political future
rather than on the future of the environment.
The minister mentioned various private citizens co-operating in
various ways to clean up the environment. Throughout this Earth
Day week in my area of Burnaby volunteers are doing what they
can to make a difference.
On the British Columbia Institute of Technology campus a litter
pick-up campaign is under way, which will include the Guichon
Creek. Others are raising money for the Canadian Parks and
Wilderness Society by getting pledges and walking or running the
five-kilometre Burnaby mountain loop, starting at the Simon
Fraser University campus.
Fish habitat in New Westminster in the Brunette Creek will be
restored. People across the country will be doing what they can to
make a difference in their local communities. Unfortunately this
will not be enough. There are many large scale projects too large
for volunteers to do on their own.
Last Thursday the committee on the status of endangered
wildlife in Canada added 16 new species to Canada's list of species
at risk. The issue of endangered species is one for which Canadians
will want to find a solution.
Last year the former Minister of the Environment came forward
with a proposal. She announced it as the solution, one which all of
Canada would readily adopt. The proposal was weak from every
angle. Not only did it not address the most serious issue of habitat
preservation, but the proposed act would have covered only a mere
4 per cent of the land of Canada. If the Deputy Prime Minister
believes animals respect provincial and federal borders, she has
been drinking too much water out of the Hamilton harbour.
If the new Minister of the Environment, who so eloquently spoke
about how Canadians want national action to conserve nature, truly
believes what he speaks, he will have no trouble assuring the House
that a new endangered species act will stop any further species
from being added to a list of species at risk as a consequence of
human activity.
Canadians understand the current Minister of the Environment
has a great deal of work ahead of him. They also understand the
previous minister created more problems than she solved.
Today, being Earth Day, is a great day for the minister to put
Canada's environment back on the right track. Therefore I urge the
minister to listen to what the grassroots are telling him and to allow
independent, scientific tests whenever necessary and to use the best
that science has to offer rather than political preening in the
decision making process.
We all want to do what is right for the environment. During the
minister's tenure, may we anticipate results rather than speeches,
and sound policy rather than more reports on the shelf. The country
is waiting.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 14th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
membership and associate memberships of various committees.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the 14th report later this day.
1774
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-29, an act to regulate
interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial
purposes of certain manganese based substances.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is in the same form as Bill C-94 of
the first session of the 35th Parliament at the time of prorogation. I
therefore request that it be reinstated as provided for in the special
order adopted March 4, 1996.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The Chair is satisfied that
this bill is in the same form as Bill C-94 was at the time of
prorogation of the first session of the 35th Parliament.
Accordingly, pursuant to order made Monday, March 4, 1996,
the bill is deemed to have been read the second time, considered by
the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development, reported without amendments and concurred in at
report stage with amendments.
* * *
(1530 )
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (for Leader of the Government in the
House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-30, an act to amend to amend the Public
Service Staff Relations Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our colleague, the Solicitor
General of Canada, I wish to state that this bill is in the same form
as Bill C-58 of the first session of the 35th Parliament at the time of
prorogation and 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 Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The Chair is satisfied that
this bill is in the same form as Bill C-58 was at the time of
prorogation of the first session of the 35th Parliament.
Accordingly, pursuant to order made Monday, March 4, 1996,
the bill is deemed to have been read the second time, considered by
the Standing Committee on Government Operations and reported
without amendment.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the 14th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to
the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the hon. parliamentary
secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a
petition signed by almost 250 people who are members or
employees of the Association des concessionnaires d'automobiles
in Joliette and who are opposed to banks getting into the car leasing
business.
The petitioners call upon the government not to amend the Banks
Act and to maintain the status quo, that is, to keep banks from
getting into the car leasing business, something which would
seriously threaten the viability of the majority of automobile
dealers and hundreds of jobs related to this business.
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I wish to table a petition bringing to the
attention of the government the fact that Le Patriarche Inc., a
toxicotherapeutic organization, is currently having a hard time
bringing volunteers into the country since the visas required are
either refused or granted with overly long delays.
The organization's operations are therefore jeopardized. A
review of Immigration Canada regulations is desirable to allow
foreign volunteers wishing to come to Canada to work to do so with
complete peace of mind.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, as you already know, Tran Trieu Quan of
Sainte-Foy near Quebec City was sentenced to life and has been
held in a Vietnamese prison for two years.
The 260 people from the riding of
Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans who signed this petition urge
the federal government to act as quickly as possible to obtain Mr.
Quan's release.
1775
I would like the members of this House to join me in supporting
his family, which is going through a very difficult time.
[English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have three
petitions. Two of the petitions say that the section 241 of the
Criminal Code states that everyone who (a) counsels a person to
commit suicide or (b) aids and abets a person to commit suicide,
whether suicide ensues or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and
liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years, that the
Supreme Court of Canada recently upheld section 241 and that if it
were struck down or amended such protection would no longer
exist.
(1535 )
The petitioners humbly ask the House not to amend or repeal that
section in any way.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): The next petition, Mr.
Speaker, states that the availability of reasonably priced energy
helps Canadians to offset the high cost of transportation in a
geographically dispersed country and that mobility is a basic right
and an economic necessity; that 52 per cent of the price of gasoline
is composed of taxes; that the federal government reinvests in
highways less than 5 per cent of its fuel tax revenues; and that two
committees of Parliament recommended federal gas increases of
1.5 per cent and 2 per cent per litre respectively.
The petitioners therefore request that Parliament not increase the
federal excise tax on gasoline and strongly consider reallocating its
current revenues to rehabilitate Canada's crumbling national
highways.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to present to
Parliament a petition signed by 210 of my constituents in Red Deer.
The petitioners express their concerns that Canada must embrace
the philosophy of zero tolerance toward individuals who drive
while impaired by alcohol or drugs, and that the impact statements
of the victims of the crime of impaired driving must be given the
highest priority prior to the sentencing of anyone convicted of
impaired driving.
Therefore, the petitioners, with whom I agree, pray and request
that Parliament proceed immediately with amendments to the
Criminal Code to ensure that the sentence given to anyone
convicted of driving while impaired or causing injury or death
while impaired reflects both the severity of the crime and zero
tolerance by Canada toward this crime.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions to present on behalf of the constituents of Simcoe
Centre.
The first petition is on the issue of euthanasia. The petitioners
request that Parliament not sanction or allow the aiding or abetting
of assisted suicide or euthanasia.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition deals with concerns of age of consent laws. The petitioners
ask that Parliament set the age of consent at 18 years to protect
children from exploitation and abuse.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the third
petition, signed by 152 petitioners, 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 could lead to
homosexuals receiving the same benefits and societal privileges as
married people.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the pleasure to present a petition signed by close to 1,000
people. It arises from a situation that occurred in our nation's
capital last year when the National Capital Commission was
looking at selling off parts of green space and open corridors in the
nation's capital.
The petitioners call to the attention of the House that when
Jacques Gréber released his plan for the national capital in 1950 it
was dedicated, at the direction of the cabinet, as a national war
memorial to those who had fought in the wars in defence of
Canada.
Therefore, the petitioners call on Parliament to ensure that this
commitment and the dedication of the green spaces of the nation's
capital are maintained as a national war memorial and are not
disposed of or sold.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a second petition from people writing prior to the budget to
indicate that they did not believe that health and dental plan
benefits should be taxable benefits. I am sure they were as pleased
as I was that the minister has decided not to do that.
However, the petitioners call on Parliament not to consider this
kind of change until there has been a study of the impact on the
health of Canadians of any such change.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition is from a group of Canadians of Sri Lankan origin
calling on Canada to maintain its neutral position, vis-à-vis Sri
1776
Lanka and the conflict in Sri Lanka, to assist in the resolution of the
conflict between the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE who
represent the Tamil people, and calling particularly for the release
of Mr. Suresh.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions. The first petition comes from the citizens of Calgary,
Alberta.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society.
(1540 )
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that
decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition comes from Sarnia, Ontario.
The petitioners would like to bring to the attention of the House
that consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health
problems or impair one's ability and, specifically, that fetal alcohol
syndrome and other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent
preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers
and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wish to inform the House
that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will
be extended by 20 minutes.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 7 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 7-Mrs. Wayne:
Of the total number of merchant navy war veterans receiving benefits: (a)
how many are receiving pensions under the Pension Act, (b) how many are
receiving health care (in hospital or at home), (c) how many possess health
cards, (d) how many are receiving income support under the new civilian Bill
C-84, (e) as there is no transition clause in this act, how many merchant navy
veterans are still covered and receiving benefits under the old civilian act, (f)
how many merchant navy veterans have applied for benefits, and how many
have been refused?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Secretary of State (Veterans)
(Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): (a) 282 as of
December 31, 1995 (including survivors); (b) 2,097 as of
December 31, 1995; (c) 2,097 as of December 31, 1995; (d) 483 as
of December 31, 1995 (including survivors); (e) merchant navy
veterans, like all veterans, must apply for benefits before service
eligibility is determined. It cannot be known how many clients
under the pre-1992 legislation would have merchant navy veteran
eligibility were they to apply under the new legislation. (f) Of the
648 disability pension applications received up to December 31,
1995, 351 were declined. For war veterans allowance, including
treatment only, as at March 31, 1996 there were 3,109 applications,
of which 756 were declined. For the veterans independence
program, as at March 31, 1996, there were 1,212 applications, one
of which was declined.
[English]
Mr. Zed: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be
allowed to stand.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I would like to draw to the attention
of the House that I have had Questions Nos. 8 and 9 on the Order
Paper since February 28, which is 53 days. Furthermore, Question
No. 9 was in the exact same form in the last session of
Parliament-nothing has changed-and it sat there, I believe, for
over 150 days without being answered.
The previous parliamentary secretary to the House leader
assured me that departmental officials were working hard on the
answer and I would have it soon.
Several weeks have gone by and I have not heard anything. It is
unacceptable that I cannot get this information in a timely fashion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Would the hon.
parliamentary secretary care to enlighten the House on the matter
raised by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster?
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, as we all do on this side of the House, I
will attempt to solicit the information that he is requesting. We will
do the very best we can to see that the information is forthcoming
in due course.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall the remaining
questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
>
1777
1777
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion 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.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
address Bill C-18 which prior to prorogation was referred to as Bill
C-95. It has been is brought back substantially in the same form, in
the same place, in the same position as it was before. I do not know
why we prorogued. The whole thing was a farce.
This is a housekeeping bill that we will support because it
amalgamates basically two departments, the Department of
Consumer and Corporate Affairs and what was formerly called the
Department of National Health and Welfare. Now the government
wants to call it the Department of Health.
Since this bill touches on the new Department of Health I would
like to submit for consideration some comments and
recommendations respecting the health of this nation, the health of
the government and what the government could do to improve
health care for Canadians. I am concerned that the new minister for
health, like the previous minister, is not in control, that he will not
take responsibility for the department and that he is letting the
bureaucrats set the agenda for him.
More people are concerned about long line-ups in hospitals and
getting care and attention, yet this minister makes a big to-do about
attending wine and cheese parties and the possibility of banning the
importation of unpasteurized cheese.
This is foolish. The bureaucracy has come up with something
that is scientific somewhere, unbeknown to us in opposition. We do
not know where they are going and what they are trying to do. If
this was the case there would be a lot of problems in Europe, would
there not? For more than 500 years Europeans have been eating
unpasteurized cheese and nobody is dying. Are Canadians dying?
Where are the facts? What kind of game is the Minister of Health
trying to play?
(1545)
This is the issue of the day versus cigarettes and some of the
petitions presented today about alcohol and breast cancer. These
are the important things, not unpasteurized cheese. Tainted blood; I
will return to the Krever inquiry shortly.
When it comes to the health and well-being of Canadians, I
believe the government is being hypocritical and duplicitous in its
approach. Government members talk about the five principles of
health care and how they will protect them. They think they are the
only ones who can protect them. Who will pay for it? Reformers
have made recommendations for health care. All the Liberals do is
scoff and laugh at them: ``slash and burn''.
I have accused the government of hypocrisy and duplicity. Let
me try to prove that with facts and evidence. I will compare one
aspect of the Liberal budget with what we had in our zero in three
budget.
On government spending and non-social spending we, along
with the government, would probably have cut, as the government
has, about $10 billion. On social spending, the one area of
established programs financing which refers to health care and
education, and the Canada assistance plan, which is welfare, the
total expenditure by the government in 1994-95 was $17 billion. If
we compare that with the cuts which we would have made to health
care, education and welfare, the combined total in our budget was
$3.5 billion. The federal government cut $6.6 billion in these areas,
$3.1 billion more.
Who is guilty of slash and burn? Who is giving less money to
those programs which are most important to the Canadian public?
Health care and education are the key foundations to any structure,
especially the social structure in Canada.
When I went door to door I said we have to cut spending
everywhere else to preserve the amount of funding we have for
health care and education. Even in caucus many of us argued there
should not be any cuts in those areas. The counter argument was to
show the Canadian public the effects of the debt and the high
interest costs to service the debt, how these are actually suffocating
and restricting the amount of money for all programs and therefore
the cuts also must touch on health care and education.
We asked those two institutions to look at some areas which
could be rationalized to eliminate waste in spending. That is not
something which is preferred, and yet the government has made
large cuts. That is duplicity.
The government had the hypocrisy to say that it would protect
health care for Canadians. It promised it would ensure portability.
It argued the Reform Party had a two-tier system.
The funding for health care by the federal government, when it
was first instituted, was to be maintained at the 50 per cent level.
That has been reduced to 27 per cent. Now the government is
saying it will guarantee stable funding two or three years from now.
It is guaranteeing that $11 billion will go to the provinces. What
security does the Canadian public have that the federal government
will stick to that solution?
I have a suggestion for the federal government to consider in
terms of health care. We have something more. We like to highlight
an alternative. This is a health care bill, after all. The alternative
we are suggesting is medicare plus. We are talking about other
options and improvements for the system which the federal
government is too afraid to approach. It needs input. It needs
debate. It is not the final Reform Party platform. It is not the final
1778
Reform Party position. However, it should not be rejected out of
hand, like the Liberals are doing, by labelling it a two-tier system.
The objectives we have are to ensure the stability of funding and
to focus our existing resources on the core and essential services. If
the Canadian Medical Association, the public and the experts could
help us to come up with a definition of core, we could get on to
choices beyond medicare, choices which would reduce the existing
line-ups.
(1550)
The medicare we have is vital and important and is something I
will always argue in favour of and I will gladly pay my tax dollars
to support it. However, we must make it efficient and effective and
return to the best health care safety net in the world.
We have to remove the existing funding freeze. If we can we
should give more money and look at restoring the per capita
transfers to the 1992-93 levels rather than what the Liberals are
doing, cutting by stealth.
Maybe we should consider converting the remaining cash
transfers to tax point transfers. Index growth in transfers with
economic and population growth trends; keep in touch with what is
happening in society.
Focusing resources was another suggestion. Canadians need to
define what constitutes core, essential health care services. For a
broken arm one type of cast could cost more than another. Let us
guarantee the cost. If other services are needed then there may be
other ways to pay for it. Perhaps other people have suggestions on
how funds could be raised for that.
Choices beyond medicare, we should consider removing existing
restrictions in law which prohibit choices in basic health care
beyond the publicly funded health care, medicare.
This is what the federal government stubbornly refuses to do.
Where medicare does not meet the needs of Canadians, they should
have the option to exercise these choices by finding services
elsewhere if outside the scope of the core services.
Where Canadians exercise choice beyond medicare they will be
responsible for arranging appropriate, private funding of such
choices either with employer-employee benefit plans, third party
insurance or through private resources.
This gives the provinces the flexibility. The five principles of
medicare can still be ensured and guaranteed, but it gives the
provinces some room to manoeuvre. These are things the federal
government refuses to accept or even consider.
I have seen a copy of some talking points the federal government
has given to its 177 members in terms of what to say on certain
issues; how to brag about revisions to the MP pension plan it so
proudly boasted about in the red book; that it has eliminated double
dipping and that it has done this and that. Yet notwithstanding all
the bragging comments, the government still has a pension plan
four to five times better than that in the private sector and it still
tries to justify its pension plan, the millions of dollars members
will receive after leaving the House on the basis of the low $64,000
salary in the House.
I will read one of the talking points which will show the
hypocrisy and duplicity. It will give further evidence of these two
words through some specific examples: ``It is always intriguing to
watch the right-wingers practice what they preach. The Ontario
Tories have proposed a 5 per cent pay increase for themselves
while slashing hospitals and social programs. At the same time, the
Reform MP for Calgary Centre has proposed more than doubling
MP salaries to $150,000 while his party has advocated two-tier
medicare and the demolition of seniors' pensions. Our government
has different priorities''.
Liberals are being told what to say out there, what to tell the
Canadian public. This is so hypocritical and so duplicitous, it
forces me to address this. I take exception to the use of political
partisanship and the political game to this extent.
It says the provincial Tories have proposed a 5 per cent increase
for themselves where they just announced they have rolled the
MPP pensions into compensation and above board, taxable, look
after yourself, thank you very much type of job. In fact, they have
done the exact opposite. It is a 5 per cent decrease, according to the
MPP pension plan in the Department of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs.
(1555)
The nerve of the government saying right-wing provincial
governments slash hospitals and social programs. Excuse me, does
it not realize who gives them the money? Does it not realize who is
supposed to help fund social programs, hospitals and education?
Who receives $7 billion less for education, health care and
welfare? It is the provinces.
The government brags about the cuts it has made to program
spending. All it has done is give the provinces less, which then in
turn have to find the ways and means of delivering the same level
of service they did before with less money.
Who gets rocks thrown at their windows? Who gets the rallies
and the special interest groups complaining about what is happen-
1779
ing? It is the provincial governments of Alberta and Ontario. They
are the ones that get all the rallies, not the federal government. The
federal government has been very smooth and good at reducing
transfers to provinces, making them come up with the solutions,
making the provincial governments the guilty party and at the same
time increasing transfers to individuals.
The federal government has slashed spending to hospitals and
education to the tune of $6.6 billion versus what we would have
done, only $3.5 billion.
The government talks of compensation. It refers to me, the
member for Calgary Centre, that I recommended doubling MP
salaries. That is another hypocritical, duplicitous and self-serving
statement. Every member knows the compensation in the House.
They know the compensation consists of $64,000 on a yearly basis.
There are two tax free allowances which we all get of $29,000. If
that were transparent and taxable like everybody else's in the
country, such as teachers and professors, that alone would equate to
around $120,000.
I have not recommended doubling the salary to $120,000. What I
am saying is that what members in the House already receive as
salary is probably close to between $120,000 and $130,000.
All I am asking is to quit justifying this gold plated MP pension
plan on the basis of one part of their salary when there are more
parts to that salary than they pretend. That is hypocritical, that is
duplicitous, it is self-serving and it is not coming clean with the
Canadian public. I for one will not stand for.
I think it is stupid that any member of Parliament uses arguments
like that to convince people of the sacrifice they have made to
justify the millions of dollars after they leave the House. I find that
offensive and I will never defend something like that.
I have given up an MP pension plan here. I will never qualify for
one no matter how long I work here. I have to look after myself. I
appreciate the government's doing that but even there it played a
stupid game. It restricted future members from not being able to
opt out. It gave it only to this crop of honest MPs from the Reform
Party who stood on principle and put their money where their
mouth is; but not this government.
The government says it has different priorities. You bet it does.
Its priorities consist of broken promises, distorting the truth or
exaggerating the truth, bragging to the public about its
achievements.
Broken promises; it promised to protect civil servants and fired
44,000. It promised to renegotiate NAFTA and endorsed it carte
blanche. We all know about the GST promise. Members opposite,
members within the government are being kicked out because they
know what they said door to door. They did not go door to door
reading page 22 of the red book. Everyone of these hypocritical
members of that party knows that.
For the Prime Minister to stand in the House today and say ``read
page 22, that is what we said'', is a bunch of crap, and he knows it
is crap. That is not what they said door to door. That is broken
promises. That is hypocritical. That is duplicitous. That is
self-serving and that is not coming clean with the Canadian public.
Talk about distorting the truth, they say Reformers would cut
$25 billion in one year. That is not true. We would not cut $25
billion in one year. The truth is we would have cut $25 billion over
three years.
(1600 )
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member for
Calgary Centre may not mind it but I am having a devil of a time
trying to listen to everybody at once. It is in the best spirit of debate
in this House that whoever has the floor be given the opportunity to
speak clearly without interruption.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I know I have hit a nerve when they start
yelling. I know I am hitting the truth when they start to rebut.
I was giving examples. I am not trying to inflame or exaggerate;
I am trying to be factual. I have given examples on distorting the
truth.
Who is slash and burn? Not us. It is this government unloading
onto the provinces and bragging to the public about its
achievements on deficit elimination, deficit reduction, that they
broke the back of the deficit. If a $30 billion deficit is breaking the
back of the deficit, if projecting a $24 billion deficit next year is
breaking the back of the deficit, if adding $111 billion to the debt is
putting Canada's financial house in order, we damn well do need a
new finance minister. We need a new CEO and a vice-president of
finance because these two people are doing this country a great
disservice.
Worst of all this government has different priorities which really
frustrates me. The government has the priority of cover-up from
the department of defence where it covers up on Somalia. Here is a
minister who gives instructions which are not even followed. Is
that respect? He is out of control with his department just as the
Minister of Health is with his.
The Krever commission was set up to find out the truth. I have a
letter from a lady whose husband died as a result of tainted blood.
She also has it now because they did not come clean with her and
tell her what was going on. They did not provide adequate
information to prevent her infection. This lady is going to die and
what does the government do? What does the justice minister do?
They comply with all these idiot groups that want to ban the release
of what the Krever commission is finding out. Is that serving the
Canadian public?
Something went wrong. Do Canadians not have the right to know
what went wrong? We are not looking to jail anybody, we just want
1780
the truth. We want to know what happened and when it happened.
The government should be embarrassed about that. If that is the
kind of government the Liberals like, if those are their priorities,
they are welcome to them.
I would have nothing to do with this. It is frustrating. I heard the
Liberals say one thing in opposition. I read about it and heard about
it and now the Liberals are the same as the Tories. They are doing
what they want in government. It is not right.
This country deserves justice. It deserves honesty from its
politicians. It deserves more than simple rhetoric, saying one thing
to get elected and then laughing and doing something else once
there. The Canadian public deserves more and it can get more.
There are more Liberal backbenchers with more integrity than any
I see along the front line of this House of Commons.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I note
with some interest that the member mentioned our country's blood
supply system. The important Krever inquiry has been put into
place because the Liberals in opposition called for it and saw fit to
put it in place.
The member's colleague from Port Moody-Coquitlam
discussed the blood system at some length earlier in the debate. I
want to assure all members that a safe and secure blood supply
system is of critical importance to me as well. It is an issue I am
fairly familiar with. It has been a horrible piece of our history
which we need to address.
Both members have forgotten, or perhaps they have chosen to
overlook the fact that this government is taking a leadership role on
the issue of the blood supply system. On March 11 the Minister of
Health announced his initiative to put a plan of action in place in
order to be prepared when Justice Krever submits his final report.
On the interim recommendations of Justice Krever, the Minister of
Health has already put in place a number of those
recommendations to make sure the system is cleaned up.
This is a leadership issue. That is what the Reform members and
many Canadians have called for, leadership. In the course of this
debate I have not heard what the Reform Party would do on this
critical issue. Perhaps the members opposite could share very
specifically with this House their proposals to improve our blood
supply system. What is the member's idea for what we can do to
show leadership? What would he do on the blood supply system if
he were in government?
(1605)
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I compliment the hon. member on her
position on the blood inquiry. I do not find that I disagree very
much with what she said. It does bother me though and I do
question whether she got my point about duplicity, saying one thing
and doing another.
The member stands up and brags about how it was the Liberal
Party that commissioned the inquiry. She then fails to go ahead.
She is like the finance minister; he only does one side of the
equation and never does the other side.
The other side of the equation is: Why will the government not
allow the information the commission is gathering, the facts of the
blood inquiry it is receiving, to be released? Why is the muzzle
being put on by the government? The member may brag about
striking the commission and putting it in place, but why will this
new information not be released?
The member asks what I would do if I were the Minister of
Health. I would need all the facts before I would make a decision.
One thing I know I would do is I would make sure to have
something in place before all these victims died. Perhaps there are
as many as 12,000 victims, I do not know.
A personal friend was affected by this and he died at a very
young age. He was just a boy and got tainted blood. It really comes
close to my heart when I see this. These families are victims no
different from and no less than victims of crimes by weapons or
physical abuse. This is something serious. I would have at least
addressed the victims. I would have told them how they would be
compensated and when and what would be left for their families
when they passed away so that there would be some security in the
future. That is not being addressed. That is being avoided. The hue
and cry out there is for that to be resolved.
I would not muzzle the final report of the commission. I would
allow for its timely release and would let the cards fall where they
may. For those who were supposed to be responsible, those who did
a good job would be complimented. Those who did a poor job
would be reprimanded. Those who were guilty of any criminal
actions would then pay the price for it, nothing more, nothing less.
A lot of people are dying.
Those are the things I would do. I am not a medical expert. I do
know that the system and a whole department has come under
question. The Canadian Red Cross, my gosh, I have always looked
up to that organization. I have given blood and I still do.
If something happened, tell us what happened so we can avoid it
in the future. There is nothing to run and hide from. Why cover up?
That is why I am accusing this government of cover up. That is
what it is doing.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, to address some of the comments the hon. member has
just brought forward is very significant. Before coming to this
place, I came out of the health care profession and I had dealt
internationally with Red Cross centres and blood supplies around
the world.
Hindsight is wonderful vision. In the early eighties when we
were reading the scientific literature regarding HIV and all of the
1781
proposals that were coming forward there had to be a judgment
call: Is this significant enough to test at this point; is the test
specific enough to identify this particular virus if it can be called a
virus? It is an example of a microbe that encapsulates itself and
changes over time. It is not something that can be pinpointed very
specifically, identified, chased down and a concoction found that
would immediately cure or prevent this very dreadful disease. Back
in the early eighties it was very much a judgment call. Looking
back, perhaps we did not make the best judgment as early as we
should have in the history of our blood supply.
I would remind the hon. member for Calgary Centre that the
Canadian Red Cross is one of the most honourable institutions in
the world. It is one of the most highly respected blood supply
sources.
I have worked in that field where there are transmissible diseases
such as hepatitis, AIDS and many other things we cannot even
begin to test for or identify. We go through a spectrum of tests
which is broad enough and significant enough that we can
guarantee Canadians and whoever else across this world uses our
blood supply that we are giving them the best product that can be
tested and identified in the marketplace today.
(1610 )
I have worked internationally in other blood supply systems. It is
like setting an aeroplane and navigation system. If one makes the
system so absolutely perfect that it is foolproof, there would never
be a child flying to Disneyworld to see that great and wonderful
spectacular event. Yet we can do things within a realm of safety and
predictability that we provide a product which is safe and available
for those in need of health care. There will come a time when we
have a synthetic and artificial blood supply that can transport
oxygen throughout the body and maintain a healthy body without
the risk of those transmissible diseases.
The Canadian Red Cross may not be perfect. Perhaps it did not
make its decision soon enough to trust that international literature
and scientific reports were significant enough that we should
challenge and start testing, although it was not as specific or as
good as it should have been at the time.
I would challenge the hon. member. There is a lot to be thankful
for in our Red Cross in the safety and respect it holds throughout
the world in this very valuable blood product.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments and the
intervention by the hon. member. I found that her from the heart,
off the top of her head defence of the Canadian Red Cross and of
the blood system and relating to us her past experience were very
admirable. An even better compliment is that it was much better
than the department's canned speech she read a couple of weeks
ago. Maybe she should speak her mind more often and we would
all be better off based on her wisdom and her knowledge. This
House could benefit from it, with respect.
The member knows darn well that I am not criticizing the Red
Cross. I am criticizing a system that has been set in place. The
information has to be gathered and should be shared with the many
people who suffered. The victims of the tainted blood want to know
what happened. That is all they want to know. I do not think they
want to go on a witch hunt. They just want to know. I do not know
why this government is catering to the former ministers of health,
the pharmaceutical agencies and the people who are now filing
legal petitions to prevent this report from being made public. That
is the part I do not understand.
My point today in debate was to point out that this government is
hypocritical in its actions and is duplicitous in the self-serving
rhetoric it uses. I tried to give specific examples. A lot of the time
the rhetoric is good. In fact a lot of time it is the same as ours and I
would swear that the government stole some of our speeches, but
its actions are not the same and do not match the rhetoric that it
uses.
That is a disservice to the Canadian public. It is a disservice to
the government. Canadians are much smarter than a lot of
politicians give them credit for. In our isolated little world here we
tend to believe what we see on TV, what we read in the newspapers,
the national media types. We think that is what is important but it is
not. What is important is the grassroots. Our constituencies are
what are important and we should always stay in touch with them.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on Bill C-18 sponsored by the Minister of Health.
It is an act to establish the Department of Health and to amend and
repeal certain acts. The substance of the act is ostensibly to take
into account the reorganization of Health Canada to operate now as
Health Canada as opposed to health and welfare.
There subsequently have been some changes to the original bill.
One had to do with ministerial responsibility. There has been an
important motion made to amend Bill C-18 in a way that will
continue to ensure ministerial accountability under the laws of
Canada.
(1615 )
Canada has the best health care system in the world. That is
undeniable. There are five principles of the Canada Health Act.
One of those principles is universality: health care is available to
all Canadians. I will speak more about that a little later on.
The second principle is public administration. The third
principle is portability which means that people can receive the
health care services they need regardless of where they live or
where they travel in Canada. The fourth principle is accessibility.
This ensures that health care is reasonably accessible for the
important health
1782
care needs of Canadians. The final principle is comprehensiveness.
This means that our health care system continues to provide the
broadest range of essential or necessary health care componentsto Canadians.
These are the five principles which the Government of Canada
and the Minister of Health continue to talk about to the Canadian
people. They also talk about its implications to Canada as a
country.
There has been a lot of discussion about the possibility of things
like extra billing, user fees or some other special arrangements but
that is not the philosophy or the principles of the Canada Health
Act.
The Canada Health Act and its five principles are a very
important component of Canadian unity. They are principles which
I believe have made probably the largest contribution to keeping
Canada together and keeping it strong and united. It is a fibre that
transcends all partisan politics, notwithstanding the comments just
heard from the previous speaker.
The Canada Health Act represents an instrument of the Canadian
government. It represents the principles that we want to share with
all Canadians, features such as helping those most in need first. We
want to make sure that under any circumstance Canadians will
never feel alone when it comes to their health care and other social
needs.
We want to make sure Canadians understand that in our health
system, the best system in the world, they will receive health care
not because they have money but because they are sick. That is a
principle and a value of which I am very proud and about which
most Canadians are very proud.
The previous speaker talked about long line-ups in hospitals and
a number of other things. I want to comment briefly on line-ups in
hospitals. I spent a number of years as a trustee for the hospital in
my community of Mississauga, the Mississauga General Hospital,
a 600-bed facility with an excellent, well-trained and
well-qualified staff.
A tremendous metamorphosis in health care has taken place over
the last decade. The changes within the health care system are
substantial in that there was, as evidenced, a shift or a reduction in
the average length of stay by patients in hospitals from somewhere
in the neighbourhood of 7.2 days average to about 4.2 days. That
represents a very significant efficiency, a productivity
improvement and a savings to the hospital environment to deliver
care.
During that period, the Mississauga hospital reduced the number
of beds from some 600 down to below 500 beds. However, in terms
of the statistics, the hospital continued to serve more patients than
it did as a 600-bed facility. One of the critical reasons for that has to
do with the shift in philosophy toward ambulatory care. It used to
be that one would go into the hospital and prepare for a surgical
procedure maybe a day or two in advance and stay a little longer.
Now one goes in a little later, the day of surgery, and then goes
home early enough to convalesce in one's home environment,
which the medical profession has found to be a more conducive
environment to the healing process. The other aspect of the shift to
ambulatory care is basically for people to receive their services and
then move out. All of this has resulted in substantial savings to the
health care system over the years.
(1620)
The funding of hospitals is a joint responsibility between the
federal and provincial governments. Through the transfers to the
provinces, the federal government funds a very substantial portion
of health care costs but it is administered and managed by the
provincial governments. Through that administration certain funds
are granted for capital purposes as well as for operating budgets.
It is up to the provinces to deliver the capital and the operating
revenue necessary under certain guidelines concerning which they
have some discretion. However they have no discretion with regard
to the five principles of the Canada Health Act.
The savings that were achieved over these many years as a result
of improved technologies, of care giving and medicine, of the shift
to an ambulatory based system and simply due to productivity
improvements in the health care sector, went to benefit the
provincial governments. As announced by the Minister of Finance
in his first budget two years ago, changes were made in the
transfers to the provinces with regard to the various elements of the
transfers. It is now called the Canada health and social transfer.
The federal government never got benefit or credit for those
savings or efficiencies within the health care system. They were all
left to the provinces. This ensured they had the kinds of tools
necessary to maintain, protect and defend the principles of the
Canada Health Act. Now the government must make sure it is
doing even better and will continue to do better with the limited
dollars available for all spending purposes and for the health and
welfare of all Canadians.
I would like to highlight a couple of features of the Canada
health and social transfer. This instrument and the so-called block
funding was created by a situation to do with the combined value of
the cash transfers to the provinces as well as tax points, or the
ability to tax at the provincial level.
One thing that occurred was that the cash component of those
transfers was beginning to be reduced. In circumstances where
provinces had violated certain principles of the Canada Health Act,
the federal Minister of Health would have stepped in and after
some review and time for correction, would have withheld certain
1783
amounts of cash transfers to the province, until such time as the
province desisted from a particular activity.
As long as there is a cash component in the transfer to the
provinces, the federal government has the opportunity to enforce
the principles of the Canada Health Act. However, it was very clear
that in time the cash component would disappear. In fact, the
federal government would not have an opportunity to enforce the
principles of the Canada Health Act.
As a result, the combination of various levels of transfers, not
only for health but for post-secondary education and the Canada
assistance plan, does provide some latitude where cash under all of
the block funding will be available for an extended period.
Since that time the finance minister has also put in place as a
result of the budget a new funding arrangement that provides an
iron clad guarantee that the cash cannot fall below $11 billion.
Fiscal responsibility was an issue about which the previous
speaker wanted to spend quite a bit of time talking. The federal
government has shown a continued, strong and unwavering
commitment to the five principles of the Canada Health Act and an
unwavering commitment to ensure there is a cash component
available to the provinces so they can continue to administer the
health system and still respect the five principles of the Canada
Health Act.
I want to make a comment about some other items, having been
a member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on
Health since January 1994. The committee has looked at a couple
of areas and the member touched on them, for instance, cigarettes.
The members of the committee looked at health warning labels on
tobacco products, as well as plain paper packaging. There were a
number of other initiatives which the committee has considered
because of statistics, such as 40,000 Canadians die each year as a
result of tobacco use.
(1625)
These issues are important to Canadians. They want us to
continue to look at ways in which we can provide cost effective
health care and also shift the emphasis away from cures and
remedies to prevention. That is the important issue.
Today Canada spends approximately 75 per cent of its health
care dollars on curative or remedial approaches and only 25 per
cent on prevention. It is becoming very evident that to continue
spending money at those levels is unsustainable. Ways have to be
found to shift those dollars into the preventive sphere so that
savings can be achieved and the costs which will be incurred
forgone if certain products are not used more responsibly in our
society.
Tobacco is one of those products. Another which is very
important to me these days has to do with alcohol consumption,
and particularly the misuse of alcohol. My private member's Bill
C-222 calls for health warning labels on alcoholic beverage
containers.
A number of people have asked why I am doing this. The answer
is painfully obvious to many Canadians. In fact, some 19,000
people die each year from alcohol related causes. Alcohol costs
Canada approximately $15 billion in health care costs, social
program costs, criminal justice costs and productivity. Fifty per
cent of family violence cases are related to alcohol abuse. One in
six family breakdowns are related to alcohol abuse. Thirty per cent
of suicides are related to alcohol abuse. Forty per cent of
automobile accidents are related to alcohol abuse. I could go on and
on. Everyone knows how terrible it is in our society. The costs are
very significant.
The direct alcohol related cost of some $15 billion is only a
portion of it. The ripple effect and the impact on families and
friends is far more than $15 billion.
Five per cent of birth defects are caused by alcohol consumption.
There is a problem known as fetal alcohol syndrome. Medical
expenses incurred during the lifetime of a fetal alcohol child cost
Canadians approximately $1.5. million. Fetal alcohol syndrome
costs Canada approximately $2.7 billion a year. Another problem is
known as fetal alcohol effects. It is very similar to fetal alcohol
syndrome, but it does not have the same physical effects. However,
it occurs two to three times more than FAS.
This is the kind of thing at which the health care system has to
look. We are talking about tens of billions of dollars in expenses
because products are misused. People do not take care of
themselves or they do not make positive lifestyle choices.
These are the things which are important to Canadians. They
want to ensure that health care dollars are spent wisely and that we
look at ways to save money on direct health care, as well as
reducing the demand on the system so that we can ensure its long
term sustainability for all Canadians for generations to come. That
is the important message.
I have listened to other speakers. I understand the role of
opposition members and that they have to be critical of the
government. However, I do not understand how partisan speeches
can be given in the House which talk about hypocrisy, duplicity,
broken promises and cover-ups, and then attempt to talk eloquently
about the blood commission.
The blood commission affects many Canadians. It is very tragic.
I want all Canadians to know our blood supply system today is safe.
Immediate steps were taken to ensure the safety of our blood
supply system.
1784
(1630)
However, that does not relieve us of the responsibility to have an
inquiry, the Krever commission, to look at all of the things that
happened during that period to ensure we understand what
happened, that we make sure there is nothing left to correct, to
ensure there is no future risk to our blood supply system. Those are
the things that are important.
Canadians need to have that confidence level. They need to have
the feeling we are doing the right things. I do not think they got it
from the comments made by the previous speaker who tended to
suggest that somehow there were still problems here.
Anytime is a good time to get the facts right. If it takes more
time to make sure they are right so we can have the correct
information in order to make correct decisions, then I say we have
to move on with this.
The commission is doing its work. The same can be said with
regard to the Somalia case and members' compensation, which the
member wanted to talk about. He showed a tremendous amount of
frustration but I do not want to fall into that trap.
I simply want to reiterate for all members and for all Canadians
that the Canadian health care system is the very best in the world.
We are the envy of every other country. We have principles which
the federal government is committed to defend and to protect. We
will never leave any person in Canada without the protection of our
health plan.
The principle all Canadians should remember is that in Canada
health care will be available to you not because you have money
but because you are sick. The Prime Minister has made that
commitment. I trust the Prime Minister and I know Canadians trust
the Prime Minister.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the member for Mississauga South and the
member for Calgary Centre who both touched on a very important
aspect of the Krever commission debate on Canada's blood supply.
However, they did not explore it as fully as I would like to in my
remarks.
We sometimes have the problem that rhetoric gets in the way of a
clear discussion of the consequences of events evolving around us.
In the case of the Krever commission and the Somalia inquiry, the
issue of the destruction of documents has been repeatedly raised.
This is a central issue to the accountability of all government
departments, including the accountability of Health Canada.
If officials are allowed to destroy documents without fear of
severe consequences, not only would the public be denied access to
the truth but there would be no such thing as ministerial
accountability. How could a minister know, be it the minister of
defence or the health minister, what was actually occurring if
officialswere destroying documents and preventing people from getting at
the truth?
It is not just an issue of whether the media, the press or even MPs
have access to the documents that tell the story, perhaps a very
terrible story, the issue is whether the minister actually has access
to these documents.
The Access to Information Act contains no provision which
specifically applies sanctions to government officials' destroying
documents. This is a terrific omission. I will say publicly that the
information commissioner, John Grace, has done a wonderful job
in bringing before the public the entire issue of the destruction of
documents.
This is a very essential issue, essential to our very democracy,
this question of whether officials, elected or unelected, can
cover-up accidents of incompetence, to use the words of the official
opposition. We are probably talking more about incompetence than
malfeasance here.
Unfortunately not only is there no provision in the Access to
Information Act to prevent this, there is no other provision save for
one clause. I do not remember the section number, but one section
in the Criminal Code forbids government functionaries from
deliberately wilfully destroying documents. However, the penalty
is less than two years.
(1635 )
Opposition parties as well as government members would do
well to pay very close attention to this failure in existing legislation
to protect Canadians, to give Canadians the opportunity, be they
elected officials or ordinary Canadians, to have access to the truth
of what goes on in the events that affect them the most.
I cannot prejudge the findings of either the Somalia inquiry or
the Krever inquiry, but at issue here is not just what the truth was
but whether the truth will ever be available to Canadians. On issues
in all ministries, certainly in Health Canada, because decisions are
made that affect human lives, we as Canadians need the
opportunity to examine those decisions.
I use the analogy of mad cow disease in Britain. Certain
decisions were made by both government and bureaucrats that have
put in jeopardy about $11 billion in the economy and possibly
human lives as well. We need the opportunity when major
government departments are making decisions on our behalf to to
examine them to make sure those decisions are being made wisely
and well.
I think the member for Mississauga South would support me in
suggesting that changes to the Access to Information Act would be
of great assistance to giving the kind of accountability we demand
of the best health service in the world, Health Canada.
1785
Mr. Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the member certainly does raise some
interesting points. He said them quite well and I will not try to
elaborate.
However, I note from an extract of Hansard of November 18,
1992 that the member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, the
current Minister of Health, speaking to the then Minister of
National Health and Welfare, called for a public inquiry into the
blood supply conducted by individuals of the highest calibre and
qualifications.
On that basis I have absolutely no question in my mind the health
minister is fully committed to dealing with the blood supply issue
in the most thorough and open fashion possible.
On March 11 of this year the minister did announce that he is
calling on the partners in Canada's blood supply system to discuss
how to redefine and renew the blood system. The minister has
reaffirmed that all the partners in the blood system, including
consumer groups, must work together to plan and provide for the
preparation of the final recommendations of the commission of
inquiry on the blood system in Canada.
I do not want to belabour it, but I know the minister absolutely
concurs with the member that information must be on the table. We
are prepared to receive, now that we have the interim report of
Justice Krever, the final recommendations to move forward to
ensure we have a safe and secure blood supply system in Canada.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member for Mississauga South is obviously very well
versed on health issues. I bring the following proposition to his
attention.
[Translation]
These past few weeks, the Minister of Health has been criticized
by Bloc Quebecois members, and the Bloc's critic for health in
particular, for his initiative concerning cheese made from raw milk.
I am one of those members who represent rural ridings. Of course,
prima facie, nobody wants stricter rules to be imposed on any
industry, especially not one located in our own electoral riding.
At any rate, the health minister did bring this issue to the
attention of the House, or rather submitted it through the regulatory
process to seek the public's opinion.
[English]
I bring the following to the attention of the House. I do this with
the concurrence of my electors. A constituent of mine, Mr. Robert
Redmond, son of Mrs. Barbara and Mr. J.P. Redmond of Vankleek
Hill, Ontario, is presently in a hospital in Toronto recovering from
having contracted listeria bacteria, apparently from having
consumed raw milk cheese. This person is now paralyzed.
(1640)
I ask my colleague if he does not agree with me that as difficult
as this issue is, the Minister of Health is right in at least gazetting
this particular regulation to make sure that in a responsible way,
which he is as the minister, that all sides of this issue be heard.
I have more constituents who are dairy producers than anyone
else in the House-
[Translation]
Mrs. Picard: Mr. Speaker, we are here to discuss Bill C-18, not
raw milk cheese. I think the hon. member is out of order.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): With all due respect for the
hon. member, the issue of relevance is always a difficult one. A
degree of flexibility comes into play. While the debate is on the
critical issue of health, I think that the member can raise a health
related issue.
As I just said, with all due respect for the hon. member for
Drummond, this is a matter of debate; it is not a point of order.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, does my colleague not agree with me
that the minister acted responsibly in ensuring this issue was
gazetted and permitted that consultation to ensure that on one hand
my dairy producer constituents are protected and that on the other
people like Mr. Redmond, this young person paralysed in hospital
today, also receive the protection of our health care system, and
that the minister, knowing these issues are important, brought it to
the committee?
Would my colleague not agree that the minister in his power
under this act did the appropriate thing in referring this issue to the
gazetting process which permits that kind of consultation with
Canadians?
Mr. Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the chief government whip raises a
very important and timely issue. He is quite correct.
As the minister indicated, we want to get all the facts and listen
to Canadians before any decisions are taken. That is why he sent
out draft regulations for a 75-day comment period.
The government is not prepared to take risks with the health and
safety of Canadians. Evidence suggests there may be increased
risks of illnesses or disease when consuming cheese made from
raw milk. Obviously from the example cited by the hon. member,
this is a very important issue and I know it will receive due
attention and care by the Government of Canada to ensure the
health of all Canadians.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be
1786
raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon.
member for Mercier-unemployment insurance reform.
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to address this bill which seeks to create a superfluous
department-
An hon. member: Superfluous?
Mr. Fillion: Yes, superfluous. This bill will allow the House to
spend over $1 billion and to hire 8,000 people before even treating
one person and taking one medical action regarding a patient.
I can understand that members opposite are a bit touchy when
questioned about the establishment of such a department, which
brings nothing new and which favours overlap more than anything
else.
(1645)
These people of course are very sensitive; they get touchy when
we raise this issue. All the more so because a debate like this one
allows us to point out some electoral promises in the red book that
have still not been kept. When we do that, they fidget and get upset.
The establishment of this department shows us once again that
the federal government seeks to act in an area of jurisdiction where
it has no authority. I say it once again because this is not the first
time this happens, since the House has considered bills to establish
other departments also.
Yet, the minister would have us believe that this is an act without
much importance, that this is no big deal, as we say where I come
from, and that the bill's aim is simply to change the department's
name. Nonsense. It is more than that. I will take a few minutes to
demonstrate that this is not true.
When we read the bill and look at paragraph 4(2)(a), describing
the minister's powers, duties and functions, we have to pay
attention, because that is what the whole bill is about.
This provision says that the promotion and preservation of the
physical, mental and social well-being of the people of Canada will
be ensured by the department. What a fine plan of action. With
such a mandate, however, the minister is using the physical, mental
and social well-being of the population to interfere even more in
the area of health. This is the federal government's excuse for
claiming a legitimate authority over a matter of exclusive
provincial jurisdiction. This issue has already been raised in this
House, and it has also been raised in other legislatures throughout
Canada.
Discussions over this intrusion clearly show that everybody is
fed up. The BNA act of 1867 provides for provincial primacy over
health. That provision has not been amended, as far as I know. The
federal government does not have any power over health except
what flows from its spending power, which it interprets in a such a
way as to set up departments in areas over which it has no
jurisdiction whatsoever. The federal spending power is a licence to
do as it pleases.
It is also because of this spending power that this government
and the previous one have accumulated a huge debt. While driving
us ever deeper into debt, this government is reducing transfer
payments to provinces. These payments are being constantly
reduced, yet they are made under certain conditions. The provinces
can lose them if those conditions are not met. And successive
budgets have made cuts.
(1650)
Let us consider what happened recently in British Columbia,
where new welfare measures and structures were put into place.
Since these structures and measures did not meet national
standards, the Minister of Human Resources Development told the
provincial authorities that they would suffer the consequences if
they did not move toward those standards, because there would be
cuts.
In fact, I do not think that this situation has been resolved. In
fact, negotiations between the federal government and that
province are still going on. These negotiations are time-consuming
and extremely costly. In the meantime, the recipients, the people in
need, are getting low quality, substandard services. Therefore,
within specific programs, the money allocated to the people in need
is not totally spent on them. If we take into account all the money
that is spent on management and on discussions at various levels,
what is left? Very little, only half of what should have been
allocated to the programs and gone directly to the citizens.
However, a lot of existing acts ensure that the doors are wide
open-and I say wide open-for the health department to intrude
on areas under provincial jurisdiction. There are, for instance, the
Criminal Code, the Narcotic Control Act and the Food and Drugs
Act, where the central government is getting fully involved.
Of course there is duplication in health care. I have always
wondered why members of the armed forces were not treated by
the same physicians as everybody else. Why was this kind of health
care system created within the armed forces? You certainly know
that the army has its own physicians, its own dentists and its own
psychiatrists. They have a parallel system for every type of health
care service found in a province.
Imagine the costs. Imagine the savings we could make if these
people used the services provided by the provinces. But no, the
army had to build this large structure that cost a lot of money.
Moreover, the army had to have the required infrastructure to
accommodate these people, so it built military hospitals across the
country.
1787
Let us not forget about the social health services that are mainly
for aboriginal people and residents of northern Canada. This is all
duplication. Since aboriginal people are under federal jurisdiction,
the health department is responsible for them. Duplication,
overlap, and at what cost?
I can easily understand why our debt is growing so rapidly.
Canadians are making the necessary effort to pay taxes in order to
reduce this debt, but the government is not doing what needs to be
done. It is creating parallel structures while we can barely pay the
interest on the debt.
(1655)
The federal government has no right to interfere in these areas,
but it is doing so anyway. It is doing so with Bill C-18. It wants the
right to interfere in the area of health care. This is just one more
instrument to launch debates between the provinces, debates that
lead absolutely nowhere. Let us leave these rights where they
belong.
If members look at the funding aspect, they will see that
something is wrong in this bill. Members will recall that transfers
to the provinces do not come from the health department but from
the finance department.
This is a situation I would call ludicrous. The Department of
Health will set its national objectives, the standards to be met if the
provinces are to get their money, but it is the Minister of Finance
who eventually-although the cost has not yet been
calculated-will make the decision, depending on what he wants to
have as a deficit or a debt. He will decide what amount will be
transferred. He sets the amounts himself without assessing the
costs of the national standards.
Putting it more clearly, this means that the Minister of Health
tells the provinces what they need to do, and then the Minister of
Finance hands over the money: ``Manage with that as you can''.
Obviously, reducing transfer payments indicates a lack of cohesion
somewhere. The objectives remain the same, but cannot be met if
the financial resources are not there.
In Quebec, what is transferred or not transferred, depending on
the mood of the Minister of Finance, is tax points. Naturally, in the
aftermath of the massive cuts to health and the Canada transfer to
the provinces, Quebec will soon be receiving no more real money,
just tax points. What does that mean? It means that the government
will have to either limit services or increase taxes in order to
provide quality services, yet with less money.
What makes the situation ridiculous is that, once again, the
federal government will continue to dictate to Quebec what it must
do, while the federal government will not cough up one cent more.
Contrary to what one might think, the Minister of Health plays a
very great economic role as well. That economic role has
repercussions within each region. When there is a shortfall
somewhere, cuts somewhere, the entire population, the entire
region feels it. In Health Canada's 1995-96 main estimates, it
indicates financial requirements of a little more than $1 billion for
operations.
Very often, as I said at the beginning, when that money is spent
on infrastructures or discussions here, there and everywhere, there
is very little left for medical care for Canadians.
I would also like to focus on the national forum on health, held in
October 1994, when we were here in this House.
(1700)
It was obvious that this government wanted to increase its
involvement in the area of public health. Visibility was the
watchword of this forum. This government tries to pounce on
everything that moves to increase its visibility. Instead of
increasing its credibility, it increases its visibility. Flags are going
to be flown all over the place; we are inundated with flyers from
each department; they are very visible. But when the time comes to
provide heath care, the government is no longer visible. It does not
believe in high quality care. It would rather have little red flags on
paper, brochures, and cheques instead of improving its credibility.
It is no wonder so many people no longer trust politicians. It is
very simple. When you do not take any action, when you act solely
to be visible, you cannot expect any other outcome.
As a matter of fact, as far as the national forum is concerned, I
remind the House that every single province, not only Quebec,
openly criticized the government's attitude. Why? Because the
government wanted them to play second fiddle with regard to
health. In this respect, many people can be quoted. The
Conservative health minister in Ontario criticized the federal
government, saying that the federal government's attempt to
impose its own interpretation of the health care principles should
be opposed.
The Conservative premier of Alberta was of the same mind. He
condemned the inflexibility of the federal government in that area.
Furthermore, this government reneged on one of the red book
promises. Let me quote it. It is said in the red book that ``a Liberal
government will establish a National Forum on Health'', up to here
everything is fine, ``chaired by the Prime Minister'', imagine, the
Prime Minister himself will chair the forum, downplaying all other
participants, but even that would have been acceptable, ``bringing
1788
together for public discussion the major partners and parties
involved with the health of Canadians''. So everybody was to be on
the same level, talking about health problems, with a moderator in
the centre who just happens to be our Prime Minister.
In spite of this firm commitment, again stated clearly in the
Liberals' red book, the federal government refused to let the
provinces participate fully in the proceedings of the national forum
on health.
This government wanted to grant provinces observer status only.
As you are indicating that my time is almost up, I will conclude
with the following. The provinces are should be the main players as
far as health is concerned. The central government should review
its intention to cut the Canada health and social transfer. It should
no longer offload the deficit onto the provinces. Why? Because this
impacts on the quality of health care and adds to the financial
burden of each and every Canadian.
(1705)
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I rise to speak, at third reading stage, on Bill
C-18, an act to establish the Department of Health and to amend
and repeal certain acts.
I believe it is essential to remind my fellow citizens that health is
a provincial jurisdiction under sections 16(7) and (16) of the BNA
Act of 1867, and the interpretation given to it by the courts. It is
clearly established and recognized that health and social services
are exclusively under provincial jurisdiction. However, the federal
government has often intruded in the health sector, over the years.
Since the beginning of the century, the federal government
passed the following health legislation. In 1919, it created its health
department and gave its first grants; in 1948, it put in place a
national program of health grants; in 1957, it passed the federal act
on hospital insurance, in 1966, the medical care act and, in 1984,
the Canada Health Act that superseded the 1957 and 1966 acts.
Moreover, this act established the federal principles governing
the Canadian health system, enacted national standards and, by the
changes it imposed, limited Quebec's autonomy. Bill C-6 of 1984
set out the criteria to be met by the provinces, including
universality, accessibility, portability, public administration and
comprehensiveness. Otherwise, the federal government might
withhold its financial contribution to health care.
The Quebec government has always condemned federal
meddling in the area of health. In 1926, the Taschereau
government-a good Liberal government, needless to say-was
the first one to oppose federal interference in health care, and all
successive Quebec governments have followed suit.
Although the health and social service system appears to have
originated in Ottawa, it was only used as an excuse by the federal
government to gradually encroach on an area of provincial
jurisdiction. Every federal intrusion in health care forced the
Quebec government to respond in order to regain full control and
assert its determination to exercise its authority in an area under its
exclusive jurisdiction.
Let me remind the House, for example, of two great moments in
Quebec's history with respect to health care. In response to the
Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act passed by the
House of Commons in 1957, Jean Lesage, then the Liberal premier
of Quebec and a former minister in Lester B. Pearson's federal
government, set up Quebec's hospital insurance plan, which was
approved by the National Assembly in 1961.
After the House of Commons passed the Medical Care Act in
1966, Robert Bourassa's Liberal government introduced the health
insurance act, which was adopted by the Quebec National
Assembly in 1970.
Over the years, the federal government's meddling cost
taxpayers more and more money. Ottawa could afford to be
generous as it was using the provinces' money or buying on credit
through its own unlimited spending powers, which played a large
part in getting all of us into debt.
May I remind the House briefly that, during the second world
war, the federal government invoked the war effort to encroach on
the area of corporate and personal income taxes, which was then
under provincial jurisdiction. This measure, which was supposed to
be temporary, is still in place. The federal government has clearly
succumbed to the temptation of exerting greater control and,
instead of giving back to the provinces the taxation powers they
enjoyed before the war, granting subsidies linked to the
establishment of federally approved programs.
(1710)
By exercising such control over tax revenues, the federal
government has been able to keep on centralizing, which caused
untold duplication and shameful squandering of taxpayers' money.
Worse yet, to make sure they would remain in office, generation
upon generation of federal politicians distributed presents, even if
it meant putting future generations of Quebecers, Canadians and,
just for you, Madam Speaker, Acadians, into debt.
In the report of 1987 commission of inquiry on health and social
services in Quebec, Thomas Dupéré wrote that establishing federal
programs merely shifted to the federal level a debate that had
already started at the provincial level and would have led to the
same results over the same period of time, give or take a few
months or a few years.
It is therefore pretentious to claim that, through its involvement,
Ottawa has been an instigator in the social and health area. It would
be more accurate to say that Ottawa's action was made much easier
by the concentration of resources that took place at the federal
level during the second world war. Ottawa took over the provinces'
idea of developing a health care system. After the federal
government made an about-face in 1945, refusing to give back the
taxation it was supposed to have taken away from the provinces
1789
only on a temporary basis, Ottawa had the means to act, to carry out
its plans to encroach on exclusive provincial powers.
Today, in spite of the fact that health is clearly an area of
provincial jurisdiction, Health Canada looms large. Its operating
budget for 1995-96 is $1.5 billion, $347 million of which just goes
to pay federal employees, from Newfoundland to British
Columbia, to administer something that essentially comes under
provincial jurisdiction and $703 million to procure goods and
services for the department, while transfer payments to the
provinces are $7 billion for the same year.
Altogether more than $8 billion is being spent in an area that
comes under provincial jurisdiction. That is one quarter of the past
year's deficit. When we look at all the departments where there is
duplication, it is easy to imagine what how much money this
government is wasting and to see how the current situation came
about.
However, the federal government never indicated that it intended
to loosen its grip on the Canadian health system. Also, during the
election campaign, the Liberal Party of Canada wrote in the red
book, and I quote: ``The role of the federal government should
include the mobilization of effort to bring together Canada's wealth
of talent and knowledge in the health care field. This is a societal
issue in which every Canadian has an interest. The federal
government must provide the means to ensure that Canadians are
involved and informed, and can understand the issues and the
options''.
For once, the Liberal Party kept its word. Last June 29, even
though all the provinces were opposed, the then Minister of Health
announced the creation of the national forum on health. The forum
was to define a vision of the Canadian health system in the 21st
century, to promote dialogue between Canadians concerning their
health system, and to set priorities for the future.
On October 14, 1994, Quebec's minister of health and social
services, Jean Rochon, wrote to the federal Minister of Health to
tell her, and I quote: ``The mandate of this forum is an
encroachment by the federal government in a field which
essentially falls under provincial jurisdiction, and that is
unacceptable. The clearly stated objective of your government,
which is to give the forum a mandate to define future priorities, in
the context of health care reform, and to define the means to that
end, is a direct intrusion in provincial governments' affairs. This is
something that cannot be hidden behind the consultative nature you
ascribe to the recommendations that would come out of this
forum''.
Incidentally, Mr. Rochon, the Quebec Minister of Health, was
recently congratulated for the courage he displayed in
implementing the health reform in Quebec by one of his
predecessors, Marc-Yvan Côté, who is well known to the Liberal
Party of Canada, since it recruited him to be its chief organizer in
Quebec, in anticipation of the next federal election.
(1715)
In his letter to the federal health minister, Mr. Rochon added that
Quebec had not waited for the federal government to adjust its
health care system according to current needs, and that extensive
public consultations had already taken place.
Moreover, he reminded his federal counterpart that cuts in health
related transfers to the provinces were not the best way for a
government to protect and to promote health care in Canada.
Indeed, it is precisely these cuts that undermine the very
principles stated in the Canada Health Act.
While the federal government was pursuing its efforts to take
control over a field of provincial jurisdiction, it unilaterally and
drastically reduced its contributions to provincial health programs.
In that regard, in the spring of 1995, the National Council of
Welfare, whose role it is to give advice to the Minister of Health,
warned the government against such a situation, saying that it
would be very hypocritical to reduce contributions to provinces
while increasing the requirements they have to meet.
Yet, this is precisely what is happening. I should point out that,
when the finance department created the program called
established programs financing, through which transfers to
provinces are made regarding social services, health and education,
it was understood that such transfer payments would be indexed
according to the growth in the Canadian economy.
Since 1986, the federal government has been using money from
these transfers to contain its deficit. It made a unilateral decision,
without any regard for the provinces' ability to cope. Between 1982
and 1995, it saved, at the expense of Quebecers, $8 billion in the
health sector alone. This shortfall forced Quebec to increase taxes
to make up for the federal withdrawal.
According to a study carried out by the C.D. Howe Institute
between 1988 and 1992, while established programs financing
expenditures remained stagnant, other federal program
expenditures increased by 25.5 per cent. In other words, while the
federal government was telling the provinces to tighten their belts,
it continued to spend right and left and to add to the deficit and the
debt.
This lack of stability in federal health expenditures is a serious
problem. Expenditures are in turn frozen, reduced or de-indexed
according to the mood of the finance minister and the cash
requirements of his department. We no longer have a fixed funding
formula approved by all the governments. Funding is unilaterally
1790
and arbitrarily determined by the federal government, without any
consideration for the real costs of the provincial programs.
This constant change in the funding level, which is always
dropping, has become a real nightmare for those involved in the
health industry. What is worse is that the finance minister does not
seem to realize that he is no longer juggling only with figures now,
but that he is playing with the health of the Canadian population.
Last February, in his latest budget, the finance minister decided
to reduce once again health transfers to the provinces. In this area,
Quebec stands to lose $650 million in 1996-97 and $1.9 billion in
1997-98. That must be part of the benefits of federalism. It is
important to note that when a federal government member says that
federalism is profitable, he means it is profitable for the federal
government, but costly for the provinces which do not have as
much leeway as they used to.
In the spring of 1995, the National Council of Welfare made
these comments about the planned cuts to health care funding, and I
quote: ``The measures announced in this budget would likely
destroy a national social services system that took a whole
generation to build''.
Here is what the British Columbia health minister said about
these cuts, and I quote:
[English]
``Last February's budget which cut transfers to provinces for
health has forced provinces to look at unpalatable cuts that threaten
medicare''.
(1720)
[Translation]
If Canada's health minister was so concerned about the health
care system in our country, he would have done what his colleague
from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce did and would have opposed his
government's last budget attacking social programs. He would
have stood up in cabinet where these decisions are made and would
have set the people's pressing needs for quality health care in
Canada against the finance minister's figures. The health minister
could have suggested to the government to get the money from
those who benefit from many tax shelters, starting with the Liberal
Party's generous financial backers, and not forgetting of course the
finance minister's own companies.
But this is not what he did. Today, he is proposing to us an old
bill that was severely criticized by all stakeholders at second
reading, during the first session of this 35th Parliament. A bill that
is nothing but rehash, a bill that perpetuates the federal
government's interference in health care, an area-we will never
say it enough-under provincial jurisdiction.
Subclause 4(1) of the bill describes the powers, duties and
functions of the minister while subclause 4(2) spells out what these
functions encompass and deals with the protection of the people of
Canada against risks to health and the spreading of diseases.
Having seen where that got us with raw milk cheeses, we can easily
imagine that on the strength of these provisions the federal
government would not hesitate to meddle further in the
administration of health care in Canada.
The bill before us is hypocritical enough to state, in clause 12,
and I quote:
Nothing in this Act or the regulations authorizes the Minister or any officer or
employee of the Department to exercise any jurisdiction or control over any
health authority operating under the laws of any province.
When provincial health funding is cut this drastically, there is
direct interference in the operation of agencies operating under
provincial authority, by reducing their ability to continue to offer a
satisfactory level of services to the public.
The Bloc Quebecois condemns this bill, because it sanctions the
interference of the federal government in areas of provincial
jurisdiction. In the health field, Quebec has its priorities and must
have the right to manage them independently, in accordance with
the current Constitution. This bill does not talk about ensuring
satisfactory and stable funding for health care. The minister has
abdicated his responsibilities in this field and is taking his orders
from the Minister of Finance.
This bill attacks the provinces to such an extent, without helping
them to solve the pressing problems they face, that even the most
ardent federalists have decided to fight the initiatives of the health
minister. Ontario's Conservative health minister said on September
19 of this year that there should be opposition to the federal
government's desire to dictate to the provinces its interpretation of
the principles that should govern the health care system. That same
day, Ralph Klein, the Conservative premier of Alberta, also
condemn the federal government's inflexibility, with reference to
the then minister.
In a joint communiqué, on the occasion of a meeting of health
ministers, the provinces declared that the federal government's
desire to take unilateral decisions with respect to health funding,
the interpretation of standards, and the setting of arbitrary
deadlines for the termination of consultations was certainly not
helping to resolve the problem.
Because the federal government is not able to protect the public
adequately against risks to health, and because its continual cuts
constitute the main threat to the health of the people of Quebec and
of Canada, the federal government should withdraw from the
health field and transfer the corresponding fiscal resources to the
provinces, allowing them to take over responsibility for this area
with, at the very least, the same level of effectiveness as the federal
government.
1791
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is the House
ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Call in the
members.
(1725)
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Division on
the motion is deferred until Tuesday, at 5.30 p.m.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (for Minister of Industry, Lib.) moved that
Bill C-19, an act to implement the Agreement on Internal Trade, be
read the third time and passed.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in favour of Bill
C-19. This is an important piece of legislation and marks a major
advancement in the quest to reduce barriers to trade within Canada
and to open up the domestic market to the freer flow of goods and
services.
Bill C-19 is the result of a long process of consultation which has
included many Canadians: people who are concerned aboutthe economic future of Canada; people who want to expandthe scope for employment and wealth creation for the benefit of allCanadians.
In the years since 1867 the Canadian economy has grown and
evolved in ways never imagined by the original Fathers of
Confederation. The federal government still has constitutional
responsibility for trade and commerce but over time individual
provinces have assumed prominent roles which have influenced
economic growth and have set regulations for the conduct of trade
and commerce at their levels. As a result of this, a variety of ad hoc
measures have been introduced over the years.
We now have a system of federal, provincial and territorial
trading arrangements and regulations which often conflict, which
sometimes discriminate, and which can put Canadian businesses at
a competitive disadvantage. Such barriers can cause the inefficient
use of our economic resources and can limit the ability of our
industries to take advantage of economies of scale and to maintain
competitive market positions.
There are many examples of such impediments to trade in
Canada. There are different professional and occupational
standards in different jurisdictions which can work to limit the
mobility of labour between provinces. Some provincial liquor
boards have followed selective listing policies which have the
effect of discriminating against products from outside their
jurisdictions. There are different transportation regulations
covering safety codes, inspection arrangements and vehicle
standards which make it difficult for truckers to operate in different
provincial markets.
Many local governments and other entities that have spent
taxpayers' dollars practise procurement policies which give
preference to local companies so that the ability to offer
competitive sources of supply can be determined by geography and
not by traditional marketplace measures such as price and quality.
Some jurisdictions seek to attract new investment by offering
special incentive programs for industry development which can
distort normal risk-reward equations in the investment
marketplace. Regulations governing construction procedures and
building standards can differ from one jurisdiction to the next and
cause difficulties for construction companies and labour alike.
These are just some examples of barriers and impediments that
can impact negatively on our ability to do business openly and
freely in Canada. There are many many more. Thus we have in
Canada a patchwork of regulations, standards and other barriers to
interprovincial trade which have grown around us and which have
become an unacceptable feature of the domestic marketplace.
The business community has been aware of the negative impact
of this situation for some time. Our government as well as other
governments have heard from many representatives of the private
sector who have assessed the problems in the domestic trading
environment and who have been pressuring us to make necessary
changes to open up the system.
1792
(1730 )
These people and many others, including colleagues at the
provincial and territorial levels, have recognized that a new trading
regime has to be established, one based on more open
interprovincial trade, one that will not impede the movement of
people and investment within the country and one that will give us
a mechanism to allow for co-operative approaches to the resolution
of domestic trade disputes.
The agreement on internal trade, which was negotiated by the
committee of ministers responsible for internal trade and signed in
July 1994 by the Prime Minister and all the other first ministers of
this country, gives us the framework to create such a new regime.
Bill C-19 puts in place the legislative changes that need to be made
at the federal level in order that the agreement can be implemented
and the process of change can continue.
With these changes, we will ensure that the framework for a new
regime will be in place and that we can continue the work to
remove barriers to interprovincial trade in goods and services as
well as to reduce impediments to the movement of workers and
capital between provinces. We will establish the forum for the
resolution of individual trade disputes without resorting to the
courts.
By passing this bill, the House will show leadership to other
Canadians and will confirm the intent of the federal government to
make the changes necessary to create a new trading regime within
Canada, one that reflects the political and economic realities of the
day.
As I mentioned earlier, the process leading up to this bill has
been a long one. It has involved many people and it has considered
many issues and perspectives, both national and regional.
Federal, provincial and territorial governments at both the
ministerial and official levels have been extensively involved. It is
important to note that political parties of all stripes and regional
perspectives have been involved in the process. So have many
sectors of the private sector, including business, labour and
consumer organizations.
A notable aspect of the process has been the spirit of
co-operation which has consistently characterized the negotiations.
There has been a high degree of goodwill from all parties. There is
a shared recognition that the domestic trading environment must be
improved and that it is up to governments to meet this need head
on.
The agreement represents a major step toward the shared
objective of improving the domestic trading environment and
eliminating the barriers to trade, investment and labour mobility. It
gives us general rules that prevent governments from erecting new
trade barriers and which require the reduction of existing ones in
areas covered under the agreement. As well, it gives specific
obligations in 10 economic sectors, streamlining of regulations and
standards, a formal dispute resolution mechanism and a
commitment to liberalize trade further through continuing
negotiations.
This last point is important because the bill before the House
does not signal the end of the process. It signals our support for a
continuation of the process of domestic trade policy renewal and
our commitment to make it work for all Canadians.
The committee of ministers of internal trade, which achieved the
current agreement, is now constituted as a permanent body to carry
on the work of domestic trade policy renewal. A secretariat has
been set up to provide administrative and technical support to
ministers and negotiators in this work.
A key aspect of the agreement, indeed, a key aspect of any
trading agreement, is the method by which disputes that may arise
under the agreement are to are to be resolved. While international
trading agreements have useful lessons for us in Canada, none of
their precedents was directly suitable. To meet the special needs of
the Canadian situation, an approach was needed that would
accommodate the federal-provincial system of power sharing. A
dispute settling mechanism was needed that would deal with both
general level compliance complaints, those based on the principles
of free trade, as well as specific complaints from consumers and
private business interests, those complaints that cannot be resolved
by governments themselves.
(1735)
The challenge was to find solutions that would accommodate the
desires of the provincial governments to retain the flexibility
necessary to pursue their legitimate political and economic
objectives under existing constitutional power sharing
arrangements while at the same time providing a dispute settlement
mechanism that would offer open access and cost efficient
resolution without resorting to court action and enforceable
implementation. This was the challenge and the agreement has
given us a new model for handling trade disputes, a made in
Canada model.
The agreement on internal trade sets out the framework for the
new dispute resolution mechanism that is unique to the Canadian
situation of federal and provincial power sharing and that provides
for open access to the settlement process. The approach being
followed commits all parties to the use of conciliation to address
problems that may arise from the provisions of the agreement,
including issues arising from the application of its principles, its
rules and its individual sectoral agreements.
Issues are to be resolved in the first instance on a government to
government basis. In the case of an issue or problem of concern to a
private individual or business that governments cannot or will not
deal with and where the private interest is not satisfied, the
complaint can be raised directly with a dispute resolution panel.
1793
This is an important feature. It means that individuals as well as
governments can bring forward issues for consideration.
In other words, a private party that feels harmed by an alleged
unfair trade practice or policy can bring his concerns forward
whether or not the government under whose jurisdiction a question
has arisen agrees that there is a reviewable question.
A defining principle of the internal trade agreement and of the
dispute settlement process is an emphasis on open co-operation to
solve problems. Disputing parties will be encouraged to make
every attempt to arrive at a solution through consultation and
conciliation.
If consultation fails, governments or governments on behalf of
individuals or individuals directly can ask to have a matter raised
before a panel. The panel will consider the facts and, if appropriate,
make recommendations for changed policies or behaviour.
The underlying objective of the process is to promote changes in
inconsistent behaviour and policies through recommendations and
not by applying penalties or awarding damages. Concerns have
been raised in some quarters that the federal government will be set
up as the policeman of interprovincial trade under the provisions of
Bill C-19. During committee hearings a few points of concern were
raised on the language of the act with respect to the powers of the
federal government under the act. These sections have been
clarified and the bill that we now have for third reading reflects
these changes.
It is simply not true that the federal government is seeking to act
as a policeman nor will the federal government have the power to
act unilaterally on matters concerning internal trade because of Bill
C-19. The ministerial level committee on internal trade is the main
body responsible for the implementation and operation of the
agreement, including the resolution of disputes.
All governments which are party to the agreement, that is the
federal, provincial and territorial governments, are members of that
committee. At this time the committee is co-chaired by the Hon.
James Downey, Minister of Industry for the Government of
Manitoba and the federal Minister of Industry. They are co-chairs.
They share the job. The office of the secretariat has been set up in
Winnipeg and Mr. André Dimitrijevic, a former associate deputy
minister of federal-provincial relations in Saskatchewan has been
appointed as the head of the secretariat. His office will be
responsible for administering the dispute resolution mechanism.
(1740)
A number of working groups have been or will be formed to
assess and report annually on the effects of the agreement on each
province and territory. These working groups will continue to
monitor the domestic trading environment and will make
recommendations as appropriate.
This is a broad based agreement. It includes a broad based
dispute settlement process. It includes the federal, provincial and
territorial governments and it responds to the very real concerns
which have been brought forward by representatives of all parts of
Canadian society.
The agreement represents a significant milestone in the
evolution of Canadian economic development. It represents an
important step in the process of creating a more open and
competitive market. It is a flexible agreement and it provides the
framework to deal with special situations or changing priorities.
At their annual meeting last year, the provincial premiers
reaffirmed their commitment to the objective of reducing and
eliminating barriers to the free movement of persons, goods,
services and investment among the provinces and territories. The
premiers want to continue the process of trade renewal and so does
this government. Internal trade remains an important priority, as
was most recently reaffirmed in the speech from the throne.
The passage of Bill C-19 will provide the foundation for a more
competitive domestic marketplace. It will complement the work of
the Prime Minister and other first ministers who have been actively
involved with the highly successful Team Canada approach,
seeking to broaden the market for Canadian goods and services in
export markets. We are part of a global economy and we have to
compete in the competitive international environment.
Internal barriers to trade inhibit our ability to compete
internationally. We may not be able to control every factor in the
international marketplace, but we can act on the problems that arise
within our borders.
Bill C-19 does that. In the spirit of co-operation which has
brought us this far in dealing with the matter of improving the
environment for doing business within Canada, I am pleased to
have the opportunity to express my support for this legislation. I
urge other members of the House to support it as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-19, an act to implement the
Agreement on Internal Trade.
To those of us in Quebec, this bill is both very significant and
very encouraging. For a number of years, I would say more than ten
even, we have been discussing the possibility of freeing trade
among Canada's provinces. Today, we are proud to see that the
government has acted on it.
It is vital to harmonizing trade relations, and I will explain in
detail a little later on why we agree with harmonizing trade
relations among the provinces. We freed trade with the United
States first, before we freed trade among the provinces. You can
imagine how important it was to do so.
1794
It is also important to have a dispute resolution mechanism. We
find this mechanism quite acceptable, except as we mentioned at
the bill's earlier stages, and as we discussed with Quebec officials,
it is a bit odd in our free trade agreement with the United States
that the parties-Canada and the U.S.-have to decide as the very
last thing how a dispute between firms or sectors of the economy
is to be resolved.
(1745)
In the end, the federal government will decide by order in
council where disputes will be settled. In other words, it will
unilaterally decide what is right and what is not.
This is why we, together with my colleague who was then the
industry critic, had suggested a two day debate in the House of
Commons on the importance of dispute settlement. We believe, as I
said earlier, that some sectors might be more affected in some
provinces than in others and that if a dispute was settled by order in
council, it could be unfair at times to economic sectors which
might be in a more favourable position in one province than in
others.
This is why we believe that settling a dispute by order in council
might be harmful to certain economic sectors and to certain
provinces, especially the small ones.
Interprovincial free trade is of the utmost importance. Already,
trade in goods and services in Canada and in Quebec represents 16
per cent of the gross domestic product of Quebec, for instance. It is
quite important for Quebec to have free competition with the rest of
Canada.
For instance, we can say products that Quebec sells in the rest of
Canada represent $23.3 billion. The goods we purchase from other
provinces represent $19 billion. That means we sell a little more in
the other provinces than we buy from them.
However, we sell $11 billion in services to the other provinces,
and we buy $14 billion from them. We buy about $3 billion more in
services than we sell. So, if we look at the total average, what we
sell and what we buy is about equal.
If the government had not acted by liberalizing trade between the
provinces, we could see that Quebec would have further developed
its trade with the United States. We will continue to do so with the
United States because, particularly in Quebec, we have an
extraordinary market with the cities of New York, Boston and
Buffalo, in the United States, and with Toronto, in Canada. We
have a tremendous market. In a radius of about 1,000 kilometres,
there are almost 100 million consumers.
For Quebec, it is very beneficial to work at the shortest distance
possible. We have an extraordinary market. New York and Boston,
the northeastern United States, is the richest region in the world; it
is where consumers buy the most. That is also where the business
culture is the most like ours, so that it is much easier for us to do
business in this radius. It requires much less effort, much less
research on the human behaviour level, on the cultural level, etc. It
is much simpler. Quebec will pursue its efforts to develop these
markets, which have become much easier to break into. The figures
I just gave you are based on the year 1994.
For all these reasons, our ultimate goal is to achieve Quebec
sovereignty and negotiate an economic partnership with the rest of
Canada. The government is to be thanked for this initiative. It is a
step in the right direction. As we proposed during the referendum,
we want to negotiate an economic partnership with the rest of
Canada. What we have done, what we are doing today is a step
forward that will help us achieve our goals when Quebec becomes
sovereign. In this regard, I think we have just taken an
extraordinary step.
There are other reasons, for example the advantage of
liberalizing trade with the other provinces and the U.S. The
economy is changing and will change even more dramatically in
the future. We face an extraordinary, an exciting challenge in the
coming years. The new ways of communicating, high technology,
robotics, computers, the electronic highway are all transforming
the dynamics of the economy.
(1750)
That is why borders should disappear, so that everyone can
benefit from their own intellectual and technical resources. I would
like to say a few words on this, if I have the time.
I will deal mainly with our economy of the past 50 years-there
is no need to go back to ancient history-for those sceptics who
think that free competition and free trade at the international level
are bad for us.
For those sceptics, I would like to go over the economy of the
past and that of the future. In my days as a Conservative member, I
took a strong stand for free trade with the United States. I worked
very hard to make it happen. That is why, thinking back on all the
speeches we made, the studies we commissioned and the evidence
we heard, I am convinced that free trade is a good thing.
For the benefit of those who remain sceptical, I will raise the
issue of competition. Let us not forget that, in the old days, our
main markets were wood, fur and iron. We also had a very
domestic farm industry. We raised our livestock to meet our
immediate needs. We also had coal, petroleum, in very limited
supplies, and all naturally renewable commodities, which ensured
our survival locally.
When we had plentiful supplies of natural products such as coal,
iron, wood and so on, we sold some and used some. Revenues were
relatively stable. In the old days, the economy was relatively stable
because it was driven for the most part by natural resources.
1795
Wood was used to build houses and to heat them, livestock was
killed for its meat and cows gave milk. All this makes for a very
local economy. To keep warm, people burned wood; that is quite
simple. They did not have much need for trading with Ontario or
the U.S. to feed themselves, heat their homes and what not. Theirs
was a strictly local economy. We had an enormous wealth,
particularly in Quebec, but also in the other provinces, of materials
of all sorts.
In a way, it was quite important to take protective measures. In
those days, Canadians were very afraid of having their market
invaded by the Americans or the Europeans, of anything that might
destabilize their economy. It was therefore important that barriers
be erected to protect our small local economy.
We tended to be protectionists. Barriers were erected. Customs
tariffs and tariffs of all sorts were imposed to prevent our economy
from being disturbed in any way. For decades, I would even go as
far as to say centuries, our economy remained virtually unchanged.
We were undoubtedly protectionists, and probably rightly so.
As far as national and international markets is concerned, as I
said earlier, we did not really need to rely on other countries to
provide for our needs.
(1755)
Our multinationals set up mainly in countries where natural
resources were vast and where labour was cheap. Products were
made, finished and then sold. This is how the economy and the
multinationals used to work. These businesses would go in
countries where they could produce at a low cost, thanks to the
natural resources and cheap labour available.
In the sixties, seventies and eighties, governments would get
involved when they realized that a business was experiencing
financial troubles or productivity problems, among others, and they
would subsidize these companies. It was easy for companies to get
subsidies. A lot of money was spent to subsidize businesses. I
clearly remember, and so do other members who take an interest in
the economy, that enormous amounts of money were used to
subsidize companies, until governments realized that they were
just wasting our money.
Generally speaking, when companies were in financial
difficulty, it was because they had not properly analyzed future
markets, changes affecting labour and technology, automation, and
all sorts of new ways of doing things. This was the main reason
these companies had problems and were helped out by
governments, which were essentially wasting money. Indeed, even
though they were subsidized, these companies still ended up
shutting down.
They were subsidized because they were located in remote areas.
However, they were not suitable for the region, sometimes because
the natural resources were no longer as abundant as when they had
first settled there. In any case, this resulted in a lot of money being
wasted.
Let us now look at the current economy. To those who are
sceptical and who believe that free trade is something bad which
will hurt us, let me say that I think just the opposite, and I have for
several years now. The economy in which we live, and in which we
will live in the years to come, is based on ideas rather than on
natural resources.
Mental competence will be very important. In Quebec in
particular, we have tremendous intellectual competence, and young
people graduating from our schools, colleges and universities are
outstanding. With regard to software development, in particular,
we see that we are among the best in the world. The economy of the
future will be based a lot more on mental competence than on
natural resources, as used to be the case. The information highway
is a case in point. There is much talk about it now.
People with the capacity to develop software and to use it for
promotion, sale or information, whether through the Internet or
other means of communications, will be in the forefront and will do
well. This economy will be based on ideas, on mental competence.
(1800)
Thanks to this new way of doing business with ideas and mental
competence, the economy will change a lot more rapidly. We will
witness an economic revolution that could be considered
astounding by some, but which I would see instead as a particularly
exciting new development. As you know, ideas evolve a lot faster
than coal or iron plants. Ideas change, evolve at a rapid pace.
Previously, the economy was based on natural resources like
coal and iron. We could rely on our resources, we had plenty of
them for 50 or 100 years. We lived off them, we had only to extract
and sell them, it was not complicated.
Tomorrow's economy will be much more flexible and will move
much faster. It will change more rapidly, and I think it will be very
exciting for young people.
Help from governments will be different too. Governments will
help companies to better communicate and sell their products, get
international information and international market intelligence,
and assess world markets. Government help will also target certain
sectors of the economy.
Small businesses may need information, for example. It will be
important for the government to have experts throughout the world
that can use Internet to let that small business acquire some
knowledge of what the culture is like in India, of what the lifestyle
of the Indians, the Japanese or the Chinese is like, and on how they
go about purchasing goods or services. So the government will
1796
have an important role to play in conveying to small businesses the
information they require in order to develop.
This is the economy of the future, and it is important to realize it.
I think we do, but governments will have to be flexible. That is why
Quebec is looking for more autonomy. We want to be flexible in
order to move quickly. We think that federalism, with its eleven
governments, is doomed to stagnation. It stifles development. The
government is always slow to move and takes a lot of time to react.
That is why we advocate sovereignty with an economic and
political partnership with the rest of Canada. In order to expand, we
need to be able to react more quickly and to be more efficient as a
government in our support for this new approach.
I mentioned earlier that more accessible markets will mean a lot
more transfers, not only of products but also of skills. Transfers of
skills do not cost much in transportation fees. It can be done
through computers. It will be done in the future through the
Internet and more user friendly communication services.
We are told that we will soon be able to contact anyone in the
world without having to make long distance calls. We will not have
to call long distance to talk to someone in Japan or in China in the
near future, in just a few years from now. It means we will be able
to exchange ideas and work on research or other projets with
experts from anywhere in the world.
This is why free trade with the United States, with the provinces
and with other large markets is so interesting. It will allow us to be
more efficient. Our productivity will increase and who will benefit
in the end? The consumer.
We will have good high-quality products. We will definitely be
able to increase the standard of living of our citizens. It can take us
far, but I just wanted to show that an opening onto the world, with
freer trade and increased competitiveness, should help to improve
our productivity. In turn, it should improve our products and result
in a higher standard of living for consumers and the general public.
(1805)
We will have better and nicer clothes. We will have nicer
automobiles and television sets with interactive programming. We
will be able to afford a lot of things. We need high technology, but,
in some cases, it can cost a lot of money.
When we were negotiating free trade with the United States,
some major international investors told us: ``We need large markets
to justify our investments''. People stopped investing in Canada for
two main reasons. First, they told us: ``The market is not big
enough to justify our investments. Besides, Canada's debt is too
high and we will have to pay for it. It will be too expensive and, in
the end, it will not be profitable to invest in Canada''.
High technology has its advantages, but it can sometimes be
expensive. It costs a lot of money to invent a high technology
product, which means that large investments are required, and you
need markets to make these investments profitable. Not only did
Canada have a very small market of about 25 million people, but
companies were not sure they would be able to sell their products in
other provinces. So you can imagine how restricted our market
was. Very few people were interested in investing in Canada
because the market was too small to justify the investment.
Consequently, international investors in high technology went to
Europe, to the United States, to Japan and other countries.
For these reasons, it was really necessary to secure free trade
with the United States. It was hard because Quebec was almost the
only province in favour of free trade with the United States. We,
Quebecers, worked very hard because we believed in free trade
with the United States. There was unanimity in Quebec between the
Liberal Party, the Parti Quebecois and a majority of Conservative
members at the time. We worked real hard, and it is with the help of
Quebecers that we succeeded in signing a free-trade agreement
with the United States.
Except for Mr. Turner, the Liberal Party at the time was against
free trade with the United States. Only Mr. Turner, the former
Prime Minister, was in favour of free trade. He came to the House
to make a speech in support of free trade. He contradicted the
present Prime Minister, who was against it.
Mrs. Brushett: You are a wise man.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Yes, absolutely.
So, Mr. Turner was surely a very intelligent man. He had
understood. He had insight. Unfortunately, his party was against it
and decided to wage a war to the finish. We had to work for hours.
I remember making a speech at about 11.40 p.m. in December,
just before Christmas, because we had to adopt the free trade
agreement before the end of the year, so that both countries could
ratify it. So, we made long speeches until the very end because the
Liberals, if they did not hinder us, tried to gain time. They used
every trick of parliamentary procedure to try to gain time until the
very end, until we succeeded in having the agreement adopted.
So it all happened thanks to Quebecers, to the Government of
Quebec, to its members and to the members of the Quebec wing of
the Conservative Party. There was about sixty of us at that time,
and we managed to convince the rest of Canada that free trade was
a good thing.
Today the Liberals are in favour of free trade. They won the
election, so they do not need to oppose free trade any more. They
used the free trade issue to win the election. Now they support free
trade.
1797
I am also pleased to see today that the Liberals have decided
to encourage free trade between the provinces. I totally agree with
that, and this is why I support this bill.
As I said earlier, this bill will simplify internal trade. I also
mentioned earlier that this is in line with the sovereignist project
that we still have and that we will not forget about because we still
believe in it, unless the Canadian government decides to make
changes to the Constitution.
(1810)
What we are proposing is a close, controlled economic
partnership. As I mentioned earlier, this is a good start. It will allow
us to have free trade, which is necessary.
Now that we will have free trade with the provinces, we, in
Quebec, are very aware that we will have to train our workers
better. Therefore, I urge the federal government again to accept to
transfer to Quebec the responsibility for manpower training. This is
very important for us. It is not up to the federal government to
make decisions about manpower training; it is a provincial
responsibility. This is my twelfth year as a member of Parliament,
and for twelve years we have been begging the federal government
to give manpower training back to the provinces. This is a very
important issue for us.
We can see that there is a lot of waste. There is a waste of time
and energy, and still people are not being properly trained. The
effectiveness of the federal government's manpower training is
rated at about 25 per cent. Imagine, billions of dollars spent and it
is only 25 per cent effective.
This is also true for Ontario and for British Columbia.
Manpower training should be given by provincial institutions. It is
the provinces who run educational institutions. Why does the
federal government have to buy courses from Quebec institutions?
Often, they have rules that do not correspond to those of our school
boards or of the provinces' educational institutions.
It would be much easier to co-ordinate manpower training if it
were controlled by the provinces, if the money went directly to the
provinces so that they could provide satisfactory training. We have
colleges that adapt to the needs of businesses and that design very
specialized programs corresponding to sectors of economic
activity. They take the businesses in a particular sector and create
specialized classes in order to provide people with very specific
training to meet very specific needs.
Courses are given specifically to meet the needs of these
businesses, but in many cases the federal government horns in. I
will give the House an example: someone who is unemployed
wants to take a 10 month course, starting in May and ending 10
months later. Since he is unemployed, he is not entitled to any
holiday time during his unemployment, so he cannot take the
course, because the school boards close down for two months in
Quebec. This is crazy, as well as unacceptable. I find such things
both scandalous and disgusting.
A lot of people come to see us in our offices to tell us things like
this: ``It makes no sense, I am eligible to take a course but I cannot
because it starts in the spring and ends in late fall''. Since the
teaching criteria are not the same for the school boards and for
unemployment insurance, people end up unable to take a course.
That is why I find it scandalous that money is wasted and people
with ability are also wasted. They often give up and go back home
and on to welfare, living off the government.
(1815)
I am begging the government to act promptly. In looking at my
government colleagues close to me, I am convinced that they
understand my message very well. I am not being aggressive,
merely pointing out what is nothing more than common sense.
I trust that the Liberal members making up the present
government will heed this message and make it possible for there
to be greater efficiency and for the people working in our
businesses to be better trained and therefore more productive,
turning out better products. With better products, we will be able to
compete internationally. Such is the purpose of manpower training.
That is why we are working very hard in Quebec, to have more
efficient businesses. It would be a serious mistake not to do so.
There will be no point in moaning about it when we are flooded
with products from other countries, creating unemployment and
welfare dependency. Do we want to become a banana republic, an
impoverished state, or do we want to move on into this new
economic era? In this new economic era, high technology will take
the place of natural resources.
This is why training and intellectual skills are essential for this
new economy we will be experiencing in the years to come.
Once again, I am begging the government, and the government
members in particular, since they form that government. Often
MPs do not dare speak out, but it is not always necessary to vote
against one's government in order to have one's ideas noticed. I
believe we should work very hard inside our respective caususes. I
know there are excellent Liberal members who understand what I
have just said, and I am convinced that with time they will come to
understand, as they finally did and accepted the free trade
agreement with the United States. It is normal. People evolve
slowly.
There are still people in Quebec who are not sovereignists. I say
to them that some people take more time than others to understand.
It is the same thing. There were some people who had not
understood that free trade was a good thing. Today, people know
1798
that free trade is a good thing, at least in Quebec because we export
much more to the United States than we import.
We realize that free trade is a good thing. Yet, at first, some
Liberals believed that it was not. You cannot blame people. They
take time to change. As I have just said, some take longer than
others to understand. It depends where you come from, on your
education and on where you live. This is all perfectly acceptable,
and I do not want to point the finger at anyone.
There is one thing, however. We live in an age of high
technology and major communications, and we are going to have to
meet international competition. It is an extraordinary challenge.
One that will be very exciting. I am sure the years to come will be
exciting, but we must make sure that our people receive the
intellectual training to meet the challenge.
I and the other members of the Bloc support this bill, except, and
I repeat, the part on the resolution of disputes. On the whole, we
agree with the formula, except at the end, where it provides that the
federal government may unilaterally decide who is right and who is
wrong by order.
Once again, this could harm certain provinces with very
pronounced sectors of economic activity. I will give Alberta as an
example.
(1820)
Alberta has a number of fairly major economic sectors,
including oil, beef and wheat. These are the major ones; I might
even say the only ones. If a dispute were to arise with Quebec or
Ontario in one of these areas, and the federal government
unilaterally resolved the dispute by order, Alberta's economy could
suffer significantly. It is a possibility.
Quebec has one really major sector: hydroelectric power. Should
there be a dispute over power with no solution found and should the
government unilaterally decide by order in the end to promote
uranium or atomic energy over Quebec's energy, Quebec could
suffer hugely. It is for these reasons that to give sole power to the
federal government to resolve a dispute by order-in-council could
adversely affect an important economic sector in Quebec as it
could adversely affect an important economic sector in Alberta, in
New Brunswick or elsewhere. In this sense, we think it is
dangerous and we are opposed to it.
We would have preferred a two-day debate, a public debate in
the House of Commons, so that members concerned, who feel their
rights or those of their province, their region or a sector of their
province are being abused, can publicly inform the people of these
risks by their comments.
We all know that the ability to speak out publicly often confers
an extraordinary power. Otherwise, things are done on the sly, often
in secret. That is why we live in a democratic system, to be able to
speak out publicly. It is a shame we cannot speak out freely and
publicly instead of ruling by order-in-council. It should be possible
to debate the matter, people should be able to express their views.
Maybe then, the way we see things could change radically.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about the internal trade
agreement. I will talk about why I believe free trade agreements are
good both internationally and internally within Canada. I will
follow that with a brief analysis of what the bill does and does not
do as it reflects on internal trade in Canada. I will detail some
specifics about why the Reform Party has difficulty supporting the
bill. I will wrap up my speech by specifically talking about the
energy chapter, or the missing energy chapter, the one we have been
promised repeatedly over the last couple of years which we are still
waiting to see come to fruition.
I would like to detail why the internal trade agreement is so
valuable to the people of Quebec as well as to all Canadians. I
would like the separatists in Quebec to consider the idea that the
bringing down of interprovincial trade barriers presupposes that we
have provinces around which there are barriers. There is no
guarantee that if a province separates from Canada the move for
free trade within our borders will continue.
Some of the benefits which Quebec now receives within the
Canadian Confederation are not a sure thing if it goes its way.
NAFTA, GATT and the internal trade agreements all suddenly
become up in the air for the province, then the country of the
Quebec. I urge them as they consider their options in the years to
come that they keep that in mind.
(1825)
For instance, Quebec exported more to Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick in 1989 than to any country in Europe, including
France. Quebec sold as much to Ontario as it did to the United
States. That is important. Quebec has a huge trade within Canada
and the separatists put that at risk when they start talking about
separation. It is no wonder the economy of Montreal and all of
Quebec is in turmoil right now as they consider their options.
The business people in Quebec know the truth. The truth is
Canada is good for Quebec and they should know that. To start
tossing around the idea that they could just go their own way,
everything would be copacetic and not to worry about it, is not
telling the truth to the people within their own borders. Quebec
benefits from trade within Canada. I will read a couple of statistics
about how much benefit it is for some of the provinces.
It is interesting that only 23 per cent of British Columbia's total
exports go interprovincially. In B.C. 76 to 77 per cent of its exports
1799
go internationally. We in British Columbia are not totally
dependent on the internal trade agreement and the freedom it would
allow although obviously it is a good thing for all Canadians. Most
of our product in B.C. is exported to other countries.
Take some of the other provinces. In Quebec 51 per cent of its
total exports go to other provinces. The majority of its exports go to
provinces, not to other countries, not to Europe, not to the emerging
Asian markets. Most of its trade is internal trade. If those in the
Bloc Quebecois put their thinking caps on, they would realize they
are not doing any favours to their constituents by proposing the
breakup of Canada when more than half of Quebec's trade goes to
other provinces.
Alberta exports 61 per cent of its trade to other provinces.
Alberta understands the importance of the internal free trade
agreement and of being part of Canada.
Whether we are talking about dairy products, manufactured
goods or whatever, Quebec benefits from being part of Canada. The
separatists should toss out this idea of leaving Canada which is
harming not only Quebec's business prospects but is also creating
that political uncertainty which is hurting the rest of the country. I
hope we will hear more talk that they are looking forward to
acceptable change from Canada. Many of us are looking for
acceptable attitudes from the Bloc Quebecois too.
We would like to see an acceptance that this is a mutually
beneficial thing. Quebec and Canada together is the way we should
have it. Read the statistics. We are not going to be held hostage on
this. We hold some pretty good cards in this game and we are not
about to hand over the whole deck to those who say they want to
take their ball and go home. I urge them to reconsider their political
agenda which I think is harming not only Quebec but also the rest
of Canada.
While Ontario is Quebec's most important trading partner within
Canada, Quebec ran a deficit in its trade with Ontario and its
surplus came from trade with more distant provinces. In other
words when we think of trade it is not just Ontario trade; Quebec
trades with all the provinces in big numbers. If we were to add up
all the numbers that all the provinces trade, in fact as much trade
goes on interprovincially as goes on with the rest of the world.
Interprovincial trade is key.
The Reform Party campaigned in the election in favour of the
free trade agreement. We made no bones about it. We said we
anticipated that the world was going to go toward a rules based free
trade economy and that we had best get on the bandwagon because
that bandwagon was heading out of town. The best way to ensure
prosperity for Canadians was to ensure that we were on the free
trade bandwagon.
(1830 )
We said free trade should move ahead. Reform Party members
said we would sign the NAFTA and the GATT if it came to that. We
said that if 150 countries, give or take, in the rest of the world want
to sign a free trade agreement based on a rules base trade
agreement, we were to be one of the 150 because trade,
export-import, is the future of the country.
We also said during the campaign that one thing which could
make free trade work for Canada, although it has not always
worked for Canada, is to resolve the internal trade barriers first.
There are $6.5 billion of internal trade barriers within Canada.
Everything from milk to beer costs Canadians more because of
internal trade barriers. It is not right. If we are thinking of exporting
to the world, at the very least we should be able to ensure there is
also the right to export within the country.
Let me read where this agreement is taking us. What was the
situation before this agreement came into force? Why was the
Reform Party so adamant about one particular power which should
be strengthened by the federal government? Everybody says the
Reform Party wants to dismember the federal government. There
are many areas where it should be out of business. One area it
should strengthen is the right to strike down internal trade barriers.
Section 121 of the BNA act states, and has always been the case:
``All articles of growth, produce or manufacture of any one of the
provinces shall be admitted free into each of the other provinces''.
Those are the rules around which somehow the federal government
has allowed $6.5 billion in trade barriers to be erected between all
provinces.
We have gone over this already somewhat, but we find ourselves
in a situation in which transportation companies say it is easier to
transport goods north and south across the border than it is
interprovincially. Stocking requirements for shelves state certain
products can be more visible or displayed more attractively on a
shelf than others. Interprovincial trade barriers have arisen to the
tune of $6.5 billion, even though the BNA states all provinces shall
be permitted free access into each of the other provinces. It cannot
be more clear than that.
The federal government has a responsibility and a legal right to
ensure that we have free access between provinces. We do not need
a better right than that. It is true free trade when there is the right
for growth, produce and manufacture from any of the provinces to
be admitted freely between provinces. What is needed is a federal
government with the guts to do something about it.
It should not be done after the NAFTA, after the GATT. We are
still trying to get this internal trade agreement right. Meanwhile the
band wagon is well out of town and the free trade agreement is
1800
gone. It is no wonder some people say international free trade
agreements have not been as good for Canada as they couldhave been.
I would still argue they had to go ahead. However, federal
governments past and present should have moved quicker and with
more vigour on the idea of striking down internal trade barriers
within our own country. If free trade had begun at home, people
would have accepted it, seen the benefits and been far more
accepting of the NAFTA and GATT that followed.
I have to mention specifically what happened during the
campaign when many dairy farmers in my riding were promised by
the Liberal government that it would not sign the GATT without a
strengthened and clarified article 11.2(c). I heard Liberal
candidates swear they would lie down on the railroad tracks to stop
the deal. They would resign from caucus, which given today's
activities might have been a good first step. They said they would
never sign the agreement unless article 11.2(c), dairy quotas and
tariffication, were strengthened and clarified.
The government did not even have time to read that document
before it signed it. It was signed knowing full well that during the
campaign it would sign. It was signed with out any strengthening,
without any clarification. It went immediately to tariffication.
(1835 )
It was one of those promises that caused a lot of Liberals to get
red under the collar during the campaign. They did not follow
through on that to the dairy farmers in my area. The truth in
advertising council should look into that.
There were some wild promises, including the Deputy Prime
Minister's promises on the GST, including free votes in the House
of Commons, including-I do not want to pick on your position,
Madam Speaker-the promise from the red book that they would
have deputy speakers from the opposition parties in the Chair.
What happened to all the promises?
The red book has gone from the non-fiction section of the library
and is now firmly ensconced in the fiction section of the library. I
saw someone walking out of here a while ago with a red book. The
sucker is only half as thick as it used to be. They are tearing pages
out of it as they walk, trying to make sure people do not get a good
look at it. It will be interesting how the promises part of this
develops.
I remind people watching, specifically those in my riding, that
on that article in the GATT there was enough misleading
information from the Liberals to gag a dairy cow in my riding.
What does this provincial trade agreement actually move
toward? We used to have total free trade. We had free trade on
everything that was produced, grown or manufactured, which
basically covers it. What does article 101 of this provincial trade
agreement state? I would think the government might want a
strengthened article on that. The article states the objective of the
agreement is to reduce and eliminate to the extent possible barriers
to the free movement of goods and services.
Notice the transition here is not a positive one. We went from
free trade in anything grown, produced or manufactured to free
trade wherever possible according to the government. Is this an
improvement? This is not an improvement. This is not an improved
internal trade agreement.
What does ``to the extent possible'' mean? Does it mean that
when a separatist government says a barrier cannot come down it
must stay up? Does it mean that if someone gets a lobby group or a
special interest group that might be funded by the government to
aggressively lobby the government, the barrier has to stay up?
What does it mean? No one knows for sure because it is ``to the
extent possible'' that the government will remove internal barriers.
That is not good enough. It is one of the powers which the Reform
Party has consistently said should be strengthened by the federal
government.
We have said much can be realigned in the federal-provincial
scheme. If the provinces think they can do a better job, that they
can handle it better, that they have the resources and they want to
look after a lot of what is currently done by the federal government,
we say more power to them, have a nice day, let us do it.
However, one of the powers the federal government needs to
retain if it is to have a union from coast to coast is the right to strike
down internal trade barriers. It cannot hand that over to the
provinces. If it strikes down the economic activity between
provinces, divisions will be created which create political
divisiveness, interprovincial squabbles, business fights,
uncompetitiveness, cost to consumers and cost to taxpayers. It is
not acceptable to allow people, businesses or provinces to erect
trade barriers within our country when we are looking for trade
barriers to come down around the world.
This legislation is a step in the wrong direction. A promise was
made in March 1994 just after the first federal budget. The industry
minister stated the federal government is committed to working
toward an agreement which is clear and concise, has a set of rules
that will eliminate protective measures, and includes an effective
and enforceable dispute settlement mechanism.
This agreement does not do that. If it did all of that I would say
let us go for it, let us give it a whirl and see if it will work. There are
entire areas untouched by this agreement. There are certain
agricultural products untouched. Certain government procurement
and regional development tools are untouched.
1801
(1840 )
The energy chapter is not even there. The government is asking
us to sign something that is not even there. There are about 14
chapters in this agreement. The energy chapter is a blank page.
That would be bad enough except the government said the blank
page would be filled in July 1995. July came and went and there
was no page. It is a document that we need on the energy sector,
one of the most important sectors of this agreement. September
rolled around. September 1995 was when it would happen but in
September 1995 the agreement was blank again.
There is no agreement on energy. We are being asked by the
government to support an internal trade agreement in which at least
in the area I am critiquing the chapter is non-existent. There is
nothing there. It is a blank page.
We are being asked: ``Trust me. I will sign it later and we will
negotiate something. Just give me the power now''. That is not
good enough. Unfortunately, this deal of signing agreements and
negotiating something later is typical of this government. It asked
us to do that on the Yukon land claims settlement. It asked us to do
it on the internal trade agreements. The government has asked us to
entrust it to do something through order in council on many bills
where it says: ``We are not sure what it means. We do not know
when it will come into force. We do not know how we will do it but
let us pass it''.
I say let us not pass it. Let us pass agreements and bills in this
House which are complete. If the government needs more time to
complete the bill, by all means take some time but do not ask us to
approve bills in this House which are not full and complete. With
this internal trade agreement that is a problem.
I will talk specifically on the energy chapter. This is the chapter
which I find the fact that it is not filled out paints the picture for
how effective this agreement is going to be. If we do not have a
chapter on energy I would argue we do not have an internal trade
agreement.
Agriculture is missing too. I guess it will be internal trade on
widgets and foo-foos but that is not good enough. We need internal
free trade within this country and we need it on the two most
important products in the country, at least agriculture and energy. If
the government cannot get an agreement on them, then it should
withdraw the bill until the negotiations are complete. When
negotiations are complete and the government has an agreement to
present to the House of Commons, then we will vote on it. We have
to vote no if there is no agreement in place because we will not give
the government permission to write a blank cheque.
I mentioned that the chapter covering energy was supposed to be
completed in July 1995. Then it was supposed to be completed in
September 1995. That deadline also came and went. Now the
officials are working on yet another draft of the energy sector
chapter. The council of energy ministers promises again that
August of this year is when the energy sector chapter is going to be
completed. It is going to be completed almost for sure a year or so
late.
What are we led to believe about this chapter and about this
agreement? History tells us that politics will get in the way of
common sense again, that the energy chapter may well go
unwritten again. There has already been one written that they
cannot agree with but it will probably go unwritten, unendorsed
one more time.
I am afraid that sums up the progress to date of the energy
ministers on this important matter. The blank page is rather
symbolic of the entire agreement. It just shows again that the
government cannot come through with its promise on internal trade
and it is asking us to trust it to come up with something in the
future.
I for one am not prepared to do that and I am surprised the
Liberal members are prepared to do that. I would think they would
say to their minister: ``Let us wait until we get the complete
document''. It is unbelievable. For example when buying a car
suppose I say: ``I will sign the contract to buy the car. I see it has no
wheels on it but I will buy it. Sometime when you think you want to
fill out the contract about when I get the wheels, let us talk. I will
be happy to do it''. Nobody signs contracts like that.
(1845 )
In essence this bill is a contract between the provinces and
between the federal government and the provinces and between the
Canadian people by inference and all the provinces. The deal being
signed is just not there and I am not prepared to do that. The Liberal
backbenchers, at the very least, should not be prepared to do it
either.
I mentioned the size of interprovincial trade and how important
it is. It is critically important for the country that this is done
correctly. I do not want to belabour the whole thing, but I can give
members a list of how many agreements we have had. Somebody
mentioned being here for 12 years. We had the Macdonald
commission which recommended the elimination of trade barriers
in 1984. In 1987 the committee of ministers on internal trade said
that we had to get rid of internal trade barriers. In 1989 a
memorandum of agreement stated we had to get rid of them. The
maritimes then signed a memorandum of agreement. In 1991 six
governments tried to get rid of an interprovincial agreement on
beer marketing practices. That is how specific we are in this
country. Six governments tried to get together to try to decide how
to put a beer on the shelf. They come to sort of an agreement but
one still cannot sell beer interprovincially unless one has a brewery
in every province.
We come to the intergovernmental agreement on government
procurement but that is also a difficult one to enforce. This goes on
and on. In 1992, 1993 and 1994 the ministers backed away from
completely eliminating internal trade barriers. There are about 11
sectors that they cannot solve yet they are now coming to us and
asking approval for it.
1802
I would like to wrap this up by saying that there is a long history
in this country of promising one thing on the internal trade
agreements and delivering nothing on the other.
We have a case in point which we have just gone through. I hope
that sometime during discussions on this bill the new member for
Labrador will get to his feet and talk about the energy chapter, the
missing chapter, that should go into this agreement. I would like
that member to say that the people of Labrador are sick and tired of
the fact there is no energy chapter in this internal trade agreement. I
hope that he will stand up and say: ``I am not satisfied with the way
Labrador has been treated over the years on the internal trade issue.
I am not satisfied with the fact that Labrador does not have access
to the hydro lines in Quebec if it wants to build the lower Churchill.
We are not satisfied in Labrador with the fact that they take our tax
dollars and we do not even have a gravel road that we can drive
on''.
I hope the member stands up and says: ``The money that we
could have made if we had a proper internal trade agreement in
place would look after the entire transfer payments to my
province''. If the people in Labrador had a decent internal trade
agreement they would not even need transfer payments from the
federal government.
I hope that member from Labrador has the guts to stand up in the
House of Commons and say that he is sick and tired of the fact that
Labrador has been shafted and shafted again when it comes to an
agreement.
Quebec has consistently refused to allow Labrador to build lines
in Quebec. Furthermore, Quebec has consistently refused to allow
Labrador to wheel power through its existing power grid. Instead it
is forced to sell that power to Quebec at ridiculous 1969 prices to
be resold to the Americans to the tune of $800 million to $1 billion
a year.
The people of Labrador, with some justification, are sick and
tired of that. I hope the new member for Labrador has the gumption
to stand up and say that the government had better get it right on
internal trade. He had better tell the minister that he is not going to
be satisfied with the namby-pamby promises that some day in the
future Labrador will be able to benefit from its own power sources.
I would hope that he would stand up and say: ``This has gone on
long enough. You have put Labrador in a catch-22 position''.
Labrador has to find a contract before it will be allowed to build
power lines but it cannot build power lines until it gets the
contract. They whipsaw Labrador back and forth.
By the way, Madam Speaker, the Reform Party went from 0 per
cent to 30 per cent of the vote in the last byelection. I hope that the
new member for Labrador is paying attention. There is within
Labrador a separatist movement now. They have elected an
independent MLA to sit in their own legislature. The reason for this
is because they have been shafted. They are sick and tired of it.
They do not want to leave Canada but they are tired of being fed
pabulum and lies by the federal government. They are tired of
being fed pabulum and lies even by their own provincial
government. Both are Liberal governments by the way. They are
tired of being beholden to another part of the country or to other
Canadians when they should be and have the right to be
independent.
I call on the government, when it writes this energy chapter, to
then bring this internal trade agreement back to the House for
ratification. When it writes the energy chapter it should include
Labrador's concerns. You can bet your bottom dollar the reason the
government cannot get an energy agreement right now is that
Quebec will not sign and agree to binding arbitration because
Quebec is afraid of what Labrador is going to get.
I would urge the member for Labrador to do his homework,
study this and not to support this bill until that is fixed. Labrador
deserves more.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It being6.50 p.m. the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 6.50 p.m.)