36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 207
CONTENTS
Wednesday, April 14, 1999
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| PARKINSON'S DISEASE AWARENESS MONTH
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| NIPAWIN EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE OFFICE
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| DICTÉE DES AMÉRIQUES
|
| Mr. Mark Assad |
| WESTERN TASK FORCE
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| JEUNESSES MUSICALES DU CANADA
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
1405
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Nick Discepola |
| ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| SLEEMAN BREWERIES
|
| Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
| SIKH NATION
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
| PUBLIC TRANSIT
|
| Mr. Raymond Lavigne |
1410
| JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| GYMNAST JULIE BEAULIEU
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| SOURIS RIVER
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| UNITED ALTERNATIVE
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1420
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1425
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. David Price |
1430
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1435
| YEAR 2000
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. John Williams |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1440
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1445
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Charlie Power |
1450
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. Charlie Power |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| LABOUR
|
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| KOSOVO
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1455
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| SOCIAL POLICY
|
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| CORRECTIONS CANADA
|
| Mr. Randy White |
1500
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Hon. Diane Marleau |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Kosovo
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| The Speaker |
| Kosovo
|
| Mr. Randy White |
1505
| The Speaker |
| Kosovo
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| The Speaker |
| Mr. Randy White |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1510
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| TEAM CANADA INC.
|
| Hon. Sergio Marchi |
| COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY PERMANENT ENGINEERING BOARD
|
| Mr. Gerry Byrne |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1515
| Motion for concurrence
|
| PETITIONS
|
| Housing in Nunavik
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| National Unity
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Bioartificial Kidney Research
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Kosovo
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| MMT
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| Pay Equity
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Animal Abuse
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| Pay Equity
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| Pornography
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1520
| Copyright Board
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| Human Rights
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| The Family
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Softwood Lumber
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1525
| BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1999
|
| Bill C-71. Second reading
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
1530
1535
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1540
| Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
| Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1545
| Mr. Grant Hill |
1550
1555
1600
1605
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| Mr. René Canuel |
1610
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1615
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1620
1625
1630
1635
| Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1640
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1645
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
1650
1655
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1700
1705
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1710
1715
1720
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
1725
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA FOR HEALTH AND MEDICAL PURPOSES
|
| Motion
|
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1730
1735
1740
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1745
| Amendment to the amendment
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
1750
1755
| Mr. Grant Hill |
1800
1805
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1810
1815
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1820
1825
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
1830
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Shipbuilding Industry
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1835
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
| Shipbuilding
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1840
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
| Justice
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1845
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
| Firearms Registry
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1850
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 207
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, April 14, 1999
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
PARKINSON'S DISEASE AWARENESS MONTH
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, April has been designated Parkinson's Disease Awareness
Month to highlight one of the most common neurological disorders.
The disease is a chronic brain disorder resulting in tremors,
slow movements and muscle stiffness. It affects over 100,000
Canadians, most over the age of 55.
The Parkinson Foundation of Canada, established in 1955,
consists of more than 100 chapters and support groups nationwide.
The foundation's activities are committed to funding, research,
seeking treatments, and eventually finding a cure for Parkinson's
disease.
The foundation provides training, counselling and workshops for
patients, caregivers and health care providers, while developing
educational material to heighten public awareness about
Parkinson's.
I invite the House to join with me in wishing the Parkinson
Foundation of Canada and its volunteers a very successful
Parkinson's Disease Awareness Month.
* * *
NIPAWIN EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE OFFICE
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
valued frontline federal office in my riding is to be shut down
soon.
The Nipawin employment insurance office is closing and those
least able to afford it will be forced to make a two hour round
trip to the next office and no one can say why.
I have spoken to many upset users, received about 200 letters of
support, attended a town hall meeting on the subject and had
representations from both the town council and the chamber of
commerce who are all opposed to the decision to close the office.
The Reform Party is in favour of prudent fiscal management and
would not support the existence of an office for show, but this
office is the busiest of its kind in Saskatchewan.
As the residents of Nipawin and district fill out their income
tax forms this spring, they will see first hand that they are
paying a lot more and getting a lot less from this Liberal
government.
The message from my riding is this: Reduced services combined
with high taxes are not acceptable.
* * *
[Translation]
DICTÉE DES AMÉRIQUES
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in this year of
Canadian francophonie, I would like to report that last weekend
the final of the dictée des Amériques was held in Quebec City.
This international event featured 112 finalists from 12
countries in America, Europe or Africa.
It is a source of great pride that Canada has hosted such an
event. The French language holds pride of place in our country.
One Canadian in three speaks French and one in four has French
as his or her mother tongue.
Congratulations to the prize winners.
Three of them came from right here in Canada: Marc Ethier of
Gatineau, Heidi Garrand of Regina, and Monique McDonald of North
Vancouver.
In Canada, the French language has an intrinsic value, even if
we are proud of this country's linguistic diversity.
* * *
[English]
WESTERN TASK FORCE
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as the Liberal's western task force
prepares for its great expedition to British Columbia, here is a
brief history lesson to assist them.
Prior to this government's election, B.C. used to have an army
base, a fact that appears to have escaped the Secretary of State
for the Status of Women.
Prior to this government's election, B.C. used to have a fishing
industry, a fact that appears to have escaped the more aptly
named minister of “no more” fisheries.
Prior to this government's election, B.C. used to have a
softwood lumber industry, a fact that appears to have escaped the
Minister of Heritage as her misguided Bill C-55 threatens to
further decimate the industry.
Finally, prior to this government's election, B.C. used to have
a booming economy that the federal government sucked billions of
tax dollars out of. The boom is gone but the Liberals, well,
they still suck.
The Speaker: I would appeal to hon. members to please be
very judicious in your choice of words.
* * *
[Translation]
JEUNESSES MUSICALES DU CANADA
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this year marks the fiftieth birthday of Jeunesses
musicales du Canada. This event will be celebrated in a number
of events throughout the year, including one last Monday evening
at the Montreal Casino.
Jeunesses musicales du Canada was founded in 1949 by Gilles
Lefebvre, Anaïs Allard-Rousseau and Joseph Lemieux. The
objective of this member organization of Jeunesses musicales
internationales is to develop a taste for music in young people.
In addition, thanks to its pivotal role in the creation of a
world orchestra directed by the greatest conductors of our time,
Jeunesses musicales du Canada offers our top musical talents the
opportunity to hone their craft alongside musicians from many
other countries.
On the occasion of its fiftieth anniversary, we owe a vote of
thanks to the visionary Canadians who have thus made a
contribution to the development of Canadian culture.
Many happy returns, Jeunesses musicales du Canada.
* * *
1405
KOSOVO
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for
a number of days now, all the refugees—men, women and children—who
have fled Kosovo and the threats have been in our thoughts.
I fully support our government on this matter so vital and
important to the people of Canada, which we debated when the
House resumed sitting on Monday.
Canadians are aware of the suffering of the Kosovar people, and
they can count on our government to speak on their behalf and
especially to act, as we are doing, in a timely fashion.
We all want this war to end as soon as possible so the refugees
may return home and, most importantly, recover their dignity.
* * *
[English]
ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
one of Canada's greatest military institutions was founded 75
years ago. The Royal Canadian Air Force is celebrating its
birthday as it members perform heroically in the skies over
Yugoslavia.
The Yugoslavian mission is, however, just the latest in a long,
proud history of involvement for the air force. The Canadian Air
Force made an important contribution to both world wars, Korea,
the gulf war, not to mention the ongoing commitments to
peacekeeping.
During World War I, the most highly decorated allied airman was
Canadian Billy Bishop who downed 72 enemy aircraft during the
war.
In 1940, during World War II, the RCAF played a key role in the
Battle of Britain dashing Nazi Germany's hope of invading the
United Kingdom.
The air force went on to train over 130,000 allied pilots while
playing a significant role during the Battle of the Atlantic, the
air war against Germany and on D-Day.
Congratulations to all members of the Canadian Air Force, both
past and present. You are Canada's top guns.
* * *
SLEEMAN BREWERIES
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to toast Sleeman Breweries.
Located in my riding of Guelph—Wellington, Sleeman has had an
outstanding year and recently reported that its fourth quarter
profits have increased by 44% in the past 12 months. Not only has
Sleeman expanded its operations by creating a national family of
craft breweries, it has also increased the popularity of its
traditional brands. This is great news for Sleeman and for my
hon. colleagues from Quebec because it is in their home province
that Sleeman saw the largest increase in sales.
I would like to congratulate Sleeman Breweries on yet another
success. Its business excellence, combined with its commitment
to promoting responsible drinking and its commitment to our
community has made all of Guelph—Wellington proud.
When it comes to beer, the choice is clear and that choice is
Sleeman.
* * *
SIKH NATION
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today marks the 300th birthday of the
Sikh nation. It is the Sikh duty to walk in the footsteps of the
Sikh gurus. Their belief was that all persons are the same
though they appear different regardless of creed, colour or race.
That is why the basic lessons Sikhism teaches are: selfless
service, tolerance, compassion, love, contentment, equality,
humbleness and well-being for all.
I would like to thank the Hon. Prime Minister and the chairman
of Canada Post, André Ouellet, both of whom next Monday will
unveil a Canada Post stamp with the Sikh religious symbol, the
“Kanda Sahib”.
Finally, I would urge all my colleagues in the House of Commons
to join me in congratulating Sikhs in Canada and around the world
on this momentous occasion.
* * *
[Translation]
PUBLIC TRANSIT
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun—Saint-Henri, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was
flattered to note how many colleagues had voted in favour of
Motion M-360 yesterday evening in the House.
Encouraging the use of public transit is a giant step in support
of the environment. Furthermore, modern forms of transportation
must make a strong contribution to the fight against pollution,
since they move noiselessly, pollution free and are quick and
light.
This is why I support the construction of a monorail on the
Champlain Bridge estacade, as it will help fight pollution,
reduce traffic on the bridge and above all significantly develop
the economy of my beautiful riding of Verdun—Saint-Henri, the
southwest and greater Montreal.
I note that the vast majority of my colleagues are sensitive to
the environment and such positive action must be acknowledged
publicly.
* * *
1410
[English]
JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's legal profession suffers from racism and this Liberal
government has just made matters worse.
Quebec has recently chosen to address racism in the legal
profession by appointing the first black judge in its history.
Félicitations.
The Liberal government chose instead to push equality for black
people, and indeed for all people of colour, backward.
This slap in the face of all Canadians of conscience came
recently when the government failed to appoint Judge Corrine
Sparks to the new Unified Family Court.
Appointed in 1987, Judge Sparks is the most senior woman and the
only black judge sitting in the family court in Nova Scotia.
Judge Sparks is widely respected both in the black community
throughout Canada and by the legal profession in Nova Scotia.
This Liberal government must immediately review and rectify this
wrong.
Dr. Esmerelda Thornhill, professor of law at Dalhousie wrote:
I further implore you to put in place mechanisms that will start
guaranteeing an equitable representation for racial minorities in
all federal appointments to the Judiciary.
The black community and all Canadians deserve justice on this
matter.
* * *
[Translation]
GYMNAST JULIE BEAULIEU
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I join with my
constituents in Mercier in congratulating young gymnast Julie
Beaulieu on the two gold and two bronze medals she won at
International Gymnix in Montreal on March 13 and 14 last.
Gymnix is a competition participated in by the Ukraine, the
United States, France, Argentina and Spain, countries recognized
for the excellence of their gymnasts.
Ranked third in Canada, Julie carried off top honours in this
competition. Thanks to her perseverance, her talent, her
tremendous performances, and the support of her parents, she
will be taking part in the Canadian championships next May in
Vancouver. She stands a very good chance of making it to the
next Olympic Games, as well as to the Pan-American Games and the
world championships, her personal preference.
Once again, congratulations, Julie. We will be with you in
spirit at these important sports events.
* * *
[English]
SOURIS RIVER
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to speak of a serious situation that is affecting
southwestern Manitoba and my riding of Brandon—Souris. The
residents of the area are preparing for one of the worst floods
the area has seen in 20 years.
The Souris River is predicted to rise well above flood stage.
Several hundred acres are under water right now in the Souris
Valley with the river expected to peak around April 21st. Some
businesses are already feeling the affects of the flood.
Farmers could be especially hard hit. If water stays too long
in the fields, crops will not be seeded in time and what little
profits there are will wash away.
Provincial flood forecaster, Alf Warkentin, said recently that
the length of this year's Souris River flood would depend on the
weather. If there are any more rain storms it could stay until
June.
As with the Saguenay and the Red River Valley, I urge the
government to apply the same consistency in the level of
compensation to those affected by the Souris River flood. The
livelihood of farmers and other businesses in the area are at
stake. It is time for the federal government to start becoming
proactive and develop a long term disaster assistance program.
* * *
UNITED ALTERNATIVE
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform leader's grand dream of a
united alternative continues to implode as more and more
Reformers see it for what it is; an attempt to gain power without
regard for principle.
As the Reform member for Yorkton—Melville said in today's
paper, “the byelection results should be a serious wake-up call
for us. We've got some serious problems”. He was referring to
Reform's last place finish in the Windsor—St. Clair byelection.
Reform has spent two years and all its resources trying to
create a united alternative that will win seats in Ontario. What
did it get for its efforts? It got a drop in the party's popular
vote from 14% in 1997 to an embarrassing 6% this week.
There is a lesson in this for the Reform Party: you do not gain
support by playing divisive regional politics; you do not gain
support by undermining public institutions, and you certainly do
not gain support by merely changing the name of your party.
You gain support by working hard, listening to Canadians and
above all, showing respect for every citizen in this country.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on April 8, as
part of the Salon international du livre de Québec, Ursulines de
Quebec and Ursulines de Loretteville students released a
collection of texts on international peace.
As the fighting rages in Yugoslavia and hundreds of thousands of
men, women and children are forced to flee their homeland, I
join with young Catherine Michaud, a sixth-grade student, who
penned the following:
My wish would be for no more war
For universal love to grow
For everyone, not just for me
A world of peace to get to know.
My wish would be for no more war
For weapons all to disappear
So war's young victims, not just me
A shattered world need never fear.
May Catherine's heartfelt plea transcend international borders
and add its echo to that of the shells.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
KOSOVO
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today Germany unveiled a peace plan to end the crisis in
the Balkans.
This plan offers Milosevic a 24 hour suspension of NATO air
strikes if he starts withdrawing his forces from Kosovo. It
calls for a UN force to move in as Yugoslav forces withdraw. It
entails a ceasefire and disarmament plan for ethnic Albanians and
the return of refugees under a temporary UN administration.
Has Canada endorsed the German peace plan?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the proposal put forward by the Germans was a
program that was worked on last weekend at a G-8 political
directors meeting at which Canada was clearly represented. A
series of proposals were looked at with a view to potentially
having a G-8 ministers meeting.
In the meantime there has been a discussion between Foreign
Minister Ivanov and Secretary of State Albright. Clearly, not
only would we support it, but we certainly have to seek out the
agreement of Russia to be one of the participants in it, and get
the agreement of Mr. Milosevic to the conditions that were set
out.
As I said yesterday, we are hoping that these diplomatic
initiatives that began last week will bear some fruit. However,
at this point in time there are still those kinds of exchanges
and dialogues taking place.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the German peace plan calls for a heavily armed UN
ground force to move into Kosovo as Yugoslav forces withdraw.
If the Canadian government was discussing this plan with the
Germans last week, why did the Prime Minister tell the House that
the commitment of ground troops was not at all being considered
at this time?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, clearly the Leader of the Opposition has confused
two things.
We have always said, and it goes back to the February debate
that was held in the House, that Canada would participate in a
peace implementation force. It would monitor and make sure that
any agreement that was arrived at would be properly honoured.
That is exactly what is contained in the proposal that was looked
at at the G-8 meetings. There is no difference.
Something that was debated and confirmed in the House last
February is part of the proposals that are being looked at right
now.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, regardless of the explanation now, the commitment of
ground troops to action in Yugoslavia is no longer a hypothetical
situation as it was described a day ago in the House by the Prime
Minister.
What is Canada expected to commit to this UN ground force? Will
the Prime Minister now be seeking a mandate for that commitment
from this House through a votable motion?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Leader of the Opposition was
listening very carefully to my last answer.
I said that the House has already debated and discussed what is
being proposed in the G-8 meeting. That has been part of a
discussion that the House of Commons has already addressed. I
would also like to say with great satisfaction that all sides of
the House agreed at that time that Canada would participate in a
peace implementation force. That is all that is being considered
as part of the proposal that was developed during the G-8
meetings this weekend.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
this discussion there have been no details forthcoming.
There has not been an actual votable motion on the floor of this
parliament. Despite support from all parties in the House, the
government's attitude on our involvement in this thing borders on
contempt of parliament. The government refuses to commit to a
vote on the conditions that would be involved with the Canadian
ground troops. It refused that vote. It would be so easy for
the government to come forward with it.
I would like to ask the minister again, because he would go
forward so much stronger, does the minister believe that this
parliament has a role to play in this huge military engagement
Canadians are involved in?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this parliament has been playing a role. There have
been important, in depth, take note debates on three different
occasions. Opposition critics have been briefed. There have
been regular statements by ministers.
This parliament has been greatly and deeply involved. I am sure
it will continue to be deeply involved.
1420
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is one thing to take note. How about we take a vote? That is
what Canadians are looking forward to right now. All of us need
to band together to make sure that we are not just taking note of
something. We are at war. We need a vote in this parliament and
the minister needs it so strongly for that confidence to move
forward.
We also just heard this morning that a spokesman at NATO in
Brussels has announced that he wants more planes to come from
Canada. Why is it that Canadians will find out from a NATO
spokesman in Brussels about increasing escalation of military
equipment and forces from Canada? Why would that be?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is full consultation on a daily
basis with all the partners in NATO. All 19 of us are constantly
being consulted.
Additional aircraft are needed because we want to intensify this
campaign to stop the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Additional
aircraft are being provided by many countries and Canada is also
considering it.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
Monday we had a debate on the situation in Kosovo.
During that debate, the government told us that stopping the
bombing to bring President Milosevic back at the negotiation
table was absolutely out of the question. Yet, this is precisely
what the German peace plan proposes. Today, the Minister of
Foreign Affairs told us that he was aware of that plan and that
he had discussed it during the weekend.
Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us whether Canada
changed its position, or whether the minister and cabinet did
not inform us, did not tell this House about Canada's
participation in these talks on diplomatic options, during the
meeting of foreign affairs ministers the minister attended?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the hon. member gets his
information.
The proposal is not talking about a pause and then something
happening. We are saying if there is an agreement, which is what
we have been saying all along from the very first, if there is an
agreement, then the bombing would stop while Milosevic withdrew
his troops. You cannot have troops withdrawing if you are
bombing, but there would be no pause until there was that
agreement.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
understand, but we were told just 48 hours ago that it was
pointless to raise such possibilities. Today, we are being told
the opposite.
We were also told that it was pointless to raise the issue at
the security council, since Russia and China are opposed to any
diplomatic settlement that would include the withdrawal of
Milosevic's troops from Kosovo.
It just so happens that the Chinese premier is here for a
week. Could the minister tell us if the government intends to
discuss the German proposal with the Chinese Prime Minister, to
convince him of the need to have the UN security council examine
this peace plan?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the answer is yes.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, despite
our repeated questions to the Prime Minister and the Minister of
Foreign Affairs, the Government of Canada has, in our opinion,
done nothing to assume leadership and find a political solution
to the conflict raging in Kosovo.
Not only is Germany proposing a peace plan, its chancellor is
proposing a stability pact for the Balkans.
Could the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs
finally show some leadership by unreservedly supporting the
German peace plan and by working as hard as possible to convince
the NATO allies and the UN security council of the value of this
plan?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I told the Leader of the Opposition, the German
proposal was on the agenda for all G-8 members last weekend,
Canada included.
We are, in particular, greatly interested in ensuring that the
United Nations play an active role in any agreement on Kosovo.
As the hon. member is aware, last week I went to the United
Nations to discuss with the secretary general the role the UN
could play.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if
this peace plan is so important, why was it not mentioned in the
debate in the House?
Two things are obvious: Canada's lack of leadership and the
obstinate refusal of the Prime Minister to hold a vote on the
nature of our commitment.
1425
Since the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs are
in agreement on a continuation of Monday's debate on the
situation in Kosovo, would they now be prepared to focus this
debate on the German peace plan and to have this House vote on
the plan—
The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have made an offer to the opposition parties to continue the
debate begun on Monday, and some of them turned it down. If
they still want to have that opportunity, we will give it very
careful consideration.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Canadians are desperate for us to continue pursuing diplomatic
solutions to the Kosovo crisis through the United Nations. In my
letter sent to the Prime Minister earlier today, I outlined how
Canada has a means through its position on the security council
to overcome the veto barrier. It has been done before. Think of
Lester Pearson in the Suez crisis.
Will Canada use its position on the security council to put
forward a resolution to get the Kosovo crisis before the UN
General Assembly?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the sentiment expressed by
the leader of the New Democratic Party that Canadians, in fact
people around the world, want to see a diplomatic solution. It
is certainly something we have been actively pursuing.
I would point out that at the discussions held last weekend and
at the NATO council, the nature of those diplomatic solutions
were carefully examined. It would include going back to the
United Nations Security Council to provide a mandate for an
agreement to be followed through in Kosovo.
I would say at this point in time there is in active play the
opportunity to use the security council. There are active
discussions with the Russians about how that can be achieved.
We will take note of the idea of the hon. member.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we have
a chance for peace here. We have a chance to stop the killing. I
hope the Minister of Foreign Affairs will pursue this proposal
with a vengeance. It has worked before. For his role in that
process Lester Pearson got a Nobel peace prize. It has worked
before and it can work again.
Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs assure Canadians today that
we will use our seat on the security council to sponsor a
resolution to get the Kosovo crisis before the UN General
Assembly?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last week when I was at the United Nations I met
with the secretary general as well as representatives from a
number of delegations. We talked about a united for peace
resolution. The assessment at the time was that there was no
consensus for that, that there would not be an agreed upon vote
at the assembly itself.
What I am saying to the hon. member is that there is now in play
a proposal that would be designed to bring to the security
council an agreement of all the parties that would lead to a
settlement in Kosovo. Right now that is the opportunity we are
working on very actively in co-operation with other G-8 members
and other members of the NATO council.
As I said, we will continue to pursue that. If it does not
work, we will look at other options.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to thank the Prime Minister for his rare but clear and
concise answer yesterday.
I would also like to remind the government of the Somalia
commission of inquiry and its call for a vigilant parliament. The
Somalia report cautioned about sending troops abroad that were
not properly trained for their designate mission.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure the House that before
Canadian ground forces are deployed to the Balkans that they are
properly trained and equipped for their designate mission?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
this is a whole new thing.
I am informed that the 3rd Battalion of Princess Patricia's
Canadian Light Infantry, our ACE and UN standby units, have been
training for months for action in the Balkans, including at least
one trip to the United States for training.
The training in the United States was not oriented to
peacekeeping and they are now, in turn, training Lord
Strathcona's Horse. With support, that would be about 2,000
soldiers. Can the minister confirm that this group is being
considered for the Kosovo mission and in what capacity?
1430
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all of our troops are trained to be
combat capable. There are various conditions that come up in
peacekeeping missions. We have seen that in Bosnia and in other
theatres. They are not always peaceful. They have to be
prepared for different eventualities.
Yesterday the hon. member brought up this figure of 2,000. He
brought it up because he said that something was being discussed
at Kingston. I looked into that and I found out that a month ago
there was a classroom discussion at the peacekeeping training
centre there. Somebody asked a question about different
theoretical possibilities and there was a general discussion.
Policy for the Canadian forces is not made in a classroom in
Kingston, it is made at defence headquarters. He is being
mischievous and irresponsible.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on the very day of the Kosovo debate in this House, in
response to a direct question, the Prime Minister categorically
stated that the use of ground troops was not being considered,
period. So the possibility was not debated. It was not on the
table.
Suddenly we find out that this was actively being considered by
the government at the time, in fact the week before. Why would
the government withhold this information from the House if its
desire is to get the support of the House for what it is doing in
Kosovo?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been abundantly clear about this.
The only ground forces we have been talking about are those in
relation to a peace implementation plan. There will be
peacekeepers when a peaceful condition exists in Kosovo. That is
the only thing this government has put forward. It was discussed
in the House on February 17 and that is what we are preparing 600
troops to do.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we will give the defence minister a chance to be even
more abundantly clear. If this has been discussed and
considered, will he tell the House precisely what commitment of
ground forces Canada is going to make to this international peace
force under the German plan? And will the government bring
forward a motion in this House asking for a votable commitment to
that commitment?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, talk about votable situations. The
official opposition had an opposition day and its members chose
not to talk about this subject at all. If they want a vote, they
could vote no confidence in this government.
This government is taking its responsibility and doing the
proper thing because we care about the people in Kosovo who are
being persecuted by the Yugoslav government.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the
Minister of National Defence again raised the possibility of
Canada's sending between 600 and 800 ground troops to Kosovo.
They would probably be posted in Macedonia.
No mention was ever made in the House of soldiers being posted
anywhere but in Kosovo and doing anything but playing a
humanitarian and peacekeeping role.
Would the Minister of National Defence confirm that 800 soldiers
could be sent to Macedonia, and, if so, what role they will
play?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no change from what has been
said. We had said 600 to 800 troops, but we now have it pinned
down to 600 troops. Yes, they would go to Macedonia because they
would be part of a co-operative effort with the British who are
located in Macedonia. We have not determined when they are going
to be deployed, but their only deployment will be as
peacekeepers.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the debate in
February concerned the deployment of a peacekeeping force in
Kosovo.
The minister is now talking about sending these soldiers on a
different mission in a different location. The House was
therefore never consulted on the government's new plans.
Will the Prime Minister promise, from his seat, to not send any
ground troops to Kosovo or elsewhere without consulting the
House and obtaining its approval as expressed in a vote?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member is discussing a situation that for the moment is
hypothetical only.
* * *
1435
[English]
YEAR 2000
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Health
Canada is not monitoring our hospitals and health care facilities
for the Y2K bug. Through a survey I conducted, I found that we
can expect that 35% of health care facilities will not be ready
in time and will need millions of dollars to fix the problem.
Why did the Minister of Health let the Liberal policy of pay
more, get less health care bring us to the point where 35% of our
health care facilities will not be Y2K ready on time?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the first thing we have to do is explain to the hon. member the
constitutional responsibilities here. The provinces are
responsible for the hospitals. If the provinces are not doing
the job with the money that we just gave them to make sure that
their own facilities are Y2K compliant, then the member ought to
take it up with the provinces.
As far as Health Canada is concerned, the second thing the
member has to understand is that his so-called survey is
unscientific and unreliable. I can tell the member what the
facts are. Health Canada is 93% compliant with its Y2K
responsibilities.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
week the Treasury Board said that Health Canada was dead last as
far as government preparedness for Y2K is concerned. A passing
the buck and head in the sand approach will not fix anything.
When will the government accept its responsibility for health
care in this country and ensure that the money is available so
that health care will be available on January 1, 2000?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Health Canada has consistently and continuously respected its
responsibility in relation to the approval of medical devices and
equipment and making sure its own systems are Y2K compliant. We
are 93% of the way there.
With respect to hospitals throughout the country, we have
encouraged the provinces to look after their responsibilities. I
hope they do. I remind the member that in the recent budget we
provided $11.5 billion to help the provinces do just that.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I personally
informed the government House leader of the pressing need to
extend the debate on the situation in Kosovo this evening, until
midnight.
I checked with the other opposition parties and they are all
interested in continuing the debate, which should end with a
vote on the important issue of the peace plan and the sending of
troops to that region.
Is the government prepared to extend the debate and to conclude
it with a clear vote of the House? This would be a very
important measure under the circumstances.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to continue the
debate started the other evening, under the same government
order No. 23, and under the same rules and conditions as on
Monday evening. I am prepared to add several hours, so as to
give to as many as possible members who wish to participate in
such an important debate an opportunity to do so.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the
hon. member opposite is very aware of the importance of a vote
in the House of Commons on this issue.
Does he agree that a vote in the House on the peace plan
proposed by Germany and on the possible deployment of troops in
the Kosovo region would strengthen the government's position and
would allow Canada to show some leadership in this issue,
something that it has not done since the beginning of these
events?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just asked a very
interesting question, except that it has nothing to do with the
previous suggestion to extend Monday's debate.
With regard to the first question, I already said that this side
of the House would be prepared to extend the debate, so as to
allow all those interested in making a speech and in providing
some input regarding such an important issue to do so.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
thanks to the government's policies Canadians are working harder
and harder and falling further behind. Today Statistics Canada
revealed that Canadians have seen their pre-tax incomes fall by
$2,700 since 1989 and they have not gone up a single cent since
this finance minister came to power five years ago.
When is the finance minister going to quit playing his little
games, hinting and musing about tax relief, and actually deliver
tax relief?
1440
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member's numbers are wrong. Family incomes had
been declining, but since this government has taken office they
have stabilized. Where they have declined is in the United
States.
In addition to that, we should point out, and I am delighted to
say, that the number of children living in poor or low income
families has declined by 100,000.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, rival,
rival, pants on fire.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I would hope that we would
not make any of the words rhyme. I would ask hon. members to be
very careful in their choice of words.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that pre-tax
incomes are down, but taxes in Canada are up. Even taking into
account what the minister has said, Canadians are far worse off
today than they were when this minister came to power five years
ago.
We know that the finance minister feels the pain of Canadians.
Instead of just feeling their pain, when is he going to do
something about his terrible record and start to cut taxes in
Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. member spent a little less time memorizing
nursery rhymes and a little more time doing his basic research
what he would see, as an example, is that the average income for
single income families headed by women is up by $1,000. What he
would see, as a result of the child tax benefit brought in by
this government, is that the situation facing low income families
and single families headed by mothers has improved substantially,
and his party voted against it.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the peace
plan proposed by Germany allows the UN and its secretary general
to play a key role in the Kosovo peace process.
However, Germany is not a member of the UN security council at
this time and is therefore unable to put forward its plan
itself.
My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Will Canada
use its seat on the security council to sponsor a resolution to
have the German peace plan for Kosovo adopted by that UN body?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I have already explained to the House, what we
are dealing with right now is a proposition. There is no agreed
plan. We hope that there will be an agreed plan, but there is no
plan.
A series of propositions were discussed last weekend at the G-8
meetings, but in order to go to the security council we need the
agreement of the Russians. We do not have that agreement yet. We
are working on getting it. As soon as we have that agreement we
will be very happy to support that resolution at the security
council.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's Cyprus group met today with the new High Commissioner
for Cyprus to Canada.
As a result of that discussion I ask the Minister of Foreign
Affairs if Canada will continue to support international efforts
to maintain peace in Cyprus.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are very supportive of the initiative of the
secretary general in Cyprus, particularly in sending a special
envoy to negotiate with the two parties.
We are also pleased to note that the secretary general has now
taken up the Canadian proposal, which is to initiate a de-mining
program along the boundary lines as one way of building
confidence between the two sides in Cyprus. We are prepared to
offer concrete support for that de-mining project in Cyprus.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the mother of Alison Parrot quietly and with dignity
expressed her thoughts on our justice system. She said: “Sadly,
the justice system failed to protect Alison in the first place.
There were convictions that were reduced, there was parole that
was reduced and not well supervised”.
Why is it the policy of this government to release repeat,
convicted, violent rapists to our streets?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I would like to express my sympathy
to the family in this tragic situation.
1445
I can tell my hon. colleague that over the last number of years
we have made a number of improvements to the parole system,
including risk assessment and the selection of board members.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the government has been in power now for over six years. In that
period of time the problem has not been corrected. Clearly the
problem has not been corrected. If anything, it is getting
worse.
The words of the minister are very hollow to the victims. I ask
again why the government is continuing to allow the release of
convicted repeat violent rapists on to our streets.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one death is one death too many. As I
indicated to my hon. colleague, we have made a number of changes
over the last number of years.
If my hon. colleague has suggestions that will improve it, he is
aware that the Corrections and Conditional Release Act is before
the justice committee and I would encourage him to bring his
thoughts to that committee.
* * *
KOSOVO
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, because of the deepening crisis in Kosovo, Canada has an
opportunity to use its position on the security council to show
leadership and bring about a diplomatic solution of this crisis.
Will the minister representing Canada take before the security
council a resolution under the uniting for peace precedent, a
resolution which does not require a consensus of the security
council but a simple majority?
Will Canada take that resolution before the security council and
urge an emergency special session of the general assembly to try
to arrive at a peaceful diplomatic solution to the problem?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I said to the leader of the New Democratic Party,
certainly we have been examining a variety of propositions
including the uniting for peace resolution. I discussed that at
the United Nations last week.
At the present time there is in active discussion the proposal
that was developed last weekend during a meeting of G-8
officials. It was communicated among G-8 ministers and would
have agreement. It would go to security council and would
establish the conditions for peace in Kosovo, including the
establishment of an international force to monitor the
peacekeeping and to verify the peacekeeping.
In this case the proposal by the hon. member would cross
currents with that particular proposal, and I think we should let
this particular diplomatic initiative play out first.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, all of us fervently and deeply hope that particular
proposal will bear fruit. There is no question about that.
How long is the minister prepared to wait? How many more people
must die? How many more villages must be burned and refugees
driven out of their homes before Canada finally takes urgent
action, brings this matter before the security council and
ultimately uses our leadership in the way that Lester Pearson did
in 1956 to take it before the general assembly?
How much longer is he prepared to wait before he shows that
leadership and brings it before the security council?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is a very curious undertone to the member's
question that somehow Canada was responsible for the violence,
the persecution and the repression. It is Mr. Milosevic who is
doing that. It is not Canada that is doing that. We are using
all our resources not only to try to stop that repression from
continuing but also to try to find a diplomatic solution.
We will continue to do them at the same time in a parallel
fashion. What I am saying right now is that the most likely
prospect we have at the moment is the one we have been discussing
over the last three or four days. We hope it can bear fruition.
In the world of diplomacy we are never sure but we will continue
to activate that. If it does not work we will look at other
options at the United Nations, including the uniting for peace
resolution.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, we
are now in the seventh year of the cod moratorium in Atlantic
Canada. However all scientific data show that cod stocks are at
a lower level now than they were in 1992. A particular cause for
alarm is that there are very few juvenile fish to be found.
Could the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans provide us with an
explanation as to why, in the absence of a commercial cod fishery
for seven years, cod fish numbers are so low? Is it possible
that seven million harp seals might be a factor?
1450
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are a number of reasons for the
decline in cod stocks and for the failure of the cod stocks to
recover since the moratorium in 1992. The fundamental reason for
the difficulty we face with cod was the extreme overharvesting in
the period prior to 1992 when the hon. member's party was in
power making decisions as to the total allowable catch.
We have been attempting, through a number of measures which are
extremely difficult for the fishermen in Newfoundland, Labrador
and the rest of Atlantic Canada, to try to improve cod stocks.
There are a variety of reasons, including changes in water
temperature particularly in the gulf, possible predation and
difficulties—
The Speaker: The hon. member for St. John's West.
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker,
one of the reasons for the demise of the cod stocks is the
absence of a seal management plan. There is adequate scientific
evidence which proves that harp seal populations have doubled, if
not tripled, over the past seven years.
The minister acknowledged on Monday to all provincial fisheries
ministers that for reasons of international trade there would be
no increase in seal quotas. In particular, he mentioned
sanctions against canned salmon from his home province of British
Columbia.
Will the minister accept his responsibility and implement, based
on scientific data and not politics, a seal management plan for
Atlantic Canada?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member's knowledge of
history and his own party's history is defective. It was a Tory
minister of fisheries who happened to come from Newfoundland that
responded to the threats of overseas boycotts by cutting out the
sealing in Atlantic Canada.
That started the increase in the population to which the hon.
member has referred. If he is concerned about people being
worried about overseas boycotts, he should speak to Atlantic
Canadians, 80% of whose product is exported, who know that $2.2
billion would not be coming into their region were there such a
boycott.
* * *
LABOUR
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a recent article in the
Globe and Mail stated that Canada holds the record for the
most strike activity in the G-7 industrial countries.
Will the Minister of Labour acknowledge if this information is
true or not?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. We are now at
our lowest point in strike activities in the past 20 years.
Ten per cent of the federal labour market is under the Canada
Labour Code. Last year 95% of the disputes were settled without
a strike or a lockout. Every Canadian should congratulate
employees, employers and unions.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister of agriculture has repeatedly stated that
his farm aid program was bankable and would be available for
farmers in the spring. Spring has arrived and farmers are
beginning to put in this year's crop.
Could the minister tell the House how many applications have
been approved and how much money has been paid out?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the amounts of money being paid out are
changing every day, but I can give the member an example.
In the province of Saskatchewan over 11,000 applications have
been mailed to producers. As soon as they get them filled out
and send them back we can deal with them. We cannot do it until
they fill them out and send them back.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
increasingly we are hearing troubling accounts of the Serbian
forces ill-treating civilians, and even systematically raping and
murdering innocent Kosovar women fleeing their region.
Will the Prime Minister share any information he has about this
with the House and will he undertake, on behalf of Canada, to
ensure that those responsible for these atrocities are brought
before the international criminal tribunal?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, indeed there has been a number of reports of very
serious crimes against humanity and violations against women by
the Serb forces.
What is happening is that the investigators of the international
tribunal headed by Justice Arbour are now investigating them. At
the NATO meetings on Monday we agreed that we would give all
possible information.
1455
In fact there are Canadians, specifically from the RCMP,
involved right now in taking evidence as part of that transfer of
information so that the prosecution of any war criminals can take
place.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it has now been over 100 hours since the chiefs of two
first nations in northern Ontario have been fasting at the Sioux
Lookout Zone Hospital in a desperate attempt to get the federal
government and the minister to address a very critical health
care situation. About 16,000 residents of northern Ontario
depend on this hospital that now has no emergency or obstetrics
services.
Will the Minister of Health now accept responsibility for this
crisis? Will he begin immediately to restore physician and
nursing services that operate out of the Sioux Lookout Zone
Hospital? Will he at least agree to meet today with those who
are fasting in a desperate move to get attention and resolution
to this critical health care problem?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the problems of physician and nurse supply in northwestern
Ontario have had my full attention for the last 18 months. In
the course of that period we have negotiated a new contract with
McMaster University medical school for the supply of physicians.
Recruitment activities are well under way.
As I said in a letter I sent yesterday to those who are fasting
in Sioux Lookout, I want them to join the task force that I have
already put together to work toward solutions to these problems
on the ground.
I have been working with the hon. member who represents the
riding, the hon. member for Kenora—Rainy River. He has made a
very constructive contribution to these issues. I am going there
next week to visit for myself the areas most affected—
The Speaker: The hon. member for St. John's East.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is no doubt aware that seals are
showing up in community harbours where their presence was rare
before. They have been found 11 miles up the Eagle River in
Labrador feeding on Atlantic salmon. The seals are literally
eating themselves out of house and home because they are
starving.
The seal population is now over seven million. Would the
minister not agree that a larger seal quota is needed, not only
to save cod but to save the seal herds themselves?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I announced the seal quota for this year
in January. At the time it received general acceptance. The
head of the Canadian Sealers Association, Tina Fagan, said:
The discussions the sealers association has had so far this year
with processors indicate they are satisfied with this year's TAC.
They said they could handle 275,000 harp seals—
The minister of fisheries of the province of Newfoundland said
that he was delighted with the decision of the federal minister.
He said that he was excited about it.
The St. John's newspaper supported the decision that was put
forward. That was the reaction in Newfoundland of support for
the TAC, the total allowable catch of 275,000—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg North—St. Paul.
* * *
SOCIAL POLICY
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development who met two days ago with the
federal-provincial-territorial council on social policy renewal.
Could the minister update the House on what the government is
doing to ensure that Canada's children indeed have the
opportunities needed for a better start in life?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question.
As we know, children are our future. They represent our future
as a society and as a country. On Monday the Minister of Health
and I did meet with the federal-provincial-territorial council on
social policy renewal and at that time our discussions focused on
the national children's agenda.
We are looking at how we can best work together to have a
co-ordinated approach on programs for children to make sure that
they succeed in the future. We want to ensure that the money we
invest in children helps them—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford.
* * *
CORRECTIONS CANADA
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the solicitor general. Retaliation after
labour strife in the country is really unacceptable.
I would like to tell the solicitor general that Corrections
Canada this day has fired Miss Caralynn Morris who has had
excellent performance evaluations after four and a half years of
work. Her husband is out of work and now she has been fired
after working 16 hours in one shift.
I would like to ask the solicitor general, because there are more
people involved in this, why is it that Corrections Canada is
retaliating and making a purge of its employees after this labour
strike?
1500
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish my hon. colleague had given me
notice of the question. I would have had an appropriate answer
for him this afternoon. I will get the information for my hon.
colleague and I will give it to him.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, under
Germany's proposed peace plan, international aid organizations
will begin their work in Kosovo as soon as the first soldiers of
the international peacekeeping force arrive.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Will the government
undertake, here and now, to develop a plan with Quebec and
Canadian NGOs working on the ground, so that Canada's assistance
is effective and meets the most pressing needs?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation and
Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have a plan. We are already working with Canadian NGOs from
Quebec, Ontario and the west.
We have signed agreements with CARE Canada, the CECI and World
Vision. We are continuing to await requests. We will continue
to work with all Canadian NGOs, who are doing an absolutely
wonderful job in the country.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The other day the minister said that Canada would not be against
the meeting of the G-8, but he did not say whether we would
actually support a meeting of the G-8. Now that Germany is
pressing for a meeting of the G-8, could the minister tell us
whether he would support that call for an immediate meeting of
the G-8 and what Canada would be doing to bring about that
meeting as soon as possible?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada did participate in the meeting of G-8 senior
officials on the weekend. The proposal put forward by Germany
was discussed. It was looked at, elaborated on and examined very
carefully. We were certainly part of that process.
If there is to be a meeting of G-8 leaders then of course we
would be there. We would be there in a very supportive fashion
because we think this particular proposal which we have all
worked on does have some chance of success if we can get Russia's
agreement on it.
The Speaker: My colleagues, that would bring to a close
our question period for today.
There are three points of order. I will listen to them in the
order in which they were given to me. The hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough on a point of order.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
KOSOVO
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Prior to the government House leader calling the orders of the
day, will he request the Minister of Foreign Affairs who has just
returned from a meeting with the UN ministers in Brussels to
brief the House as to the outcome of that meeting? That is what
Canadians deserve.
The Speaker: I would think that is a form of question
which would better be handled in question period. I am sure that
you can get some comment if you have private discussions. That
is not a point of order, by the way.
The second point of order is from the House leader for the
opposition.
KOSOVO
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
during question period the Minister of National Defence said it
is basically the official opposition's responsibility to declare
a debate and vote on the Kosovo situation.
1505
I therefore seek the unanimous consent of the House to debate
and vote on the Kosovo situation this night after regular hours.
The Speaker: My colleague's seeking unanimous consent
from this House is in order. Does the hon. member have
permission to put his motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I too
ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move the following
motion.
I move:
That notwithstanding the usual rules and practices of the House,
the House proceeds immediately to an emergency debate on the
following motion:
“That the House approve the peace plan proposed by the German
foreign affairs minister to put an end to the hostilities in
Yugoslavia and to proceed without delay to rebuild Kosovo and
return refugees to their homes in peace and safety; that no
member speak for more than 20 minutes, followed by 10 minutes of
questions and comments, and that, at the end of the debate, the
motion be put to a vote”.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of
the House to move this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I was about to say, a number of
points of order, genuine or otherwise, have been raised on this
issue. The government is prepared to let the debate continue
tonight, if the House so wishes. I am willing to meet with the
other parliamentary leaders to continue the debate we had
earlier in the week. In fact, the Minister of Foreign Affairs is
ready to make a speech if that were the case.
[English]
The Speaker: I do not know that these negotiations
necessarily take place on the floor of the House. May I suggest
that if the House leaders are inclined to have prolongation of
hours, perhaps they can meet with one another. May I suggest that
to the House leaders. This can always come back as a unanimous
consideration for the House.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I respect your kind words and your decision. However, I
point out that it was the hon. government House leader who made
that offer. I would suggest that this party would be in favour
of that but with a minor amendment, that we have a vote at the
end of the evening. I think our colleagues would agree to that
right here without waiting for you to make a further decision.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it seems to me that we need to separate two things here: the
ongoing debate which would not be a point of order, about whether
or not there should be a vote in the event of the commitment of
ground troops or whatever, and the question of whether or not the
debate of the other night should be extended.
I personally see no point in having a vote on the motion we
debated the other night because it was a meaningless motion in
the first place. The question is whether or not we should
continue the debate so more members can have a chance to express
themselves. In that sense, I would urge the government House
leader and other House leaders to agree. But having a vote on
what we had before us the other night would hardly be worth
doing.
The Speaker: I see we are having negotiations whether we
want to have them or not. If you want to take five minutes I do
not mind sitting in the chair. Let us hear what the government
House leader has to say.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, let me try this to see if
the House is agreeable. I would like to offer the following:
That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice, at
6.30 p.m. this day, the House shall not consider proceedings
pursuant to Standing Order 38, but it shall resume consideration
of Government Orders, Government Business No. 23, provided that
during consideration of the said Government Order, the Chair
shall not receive any quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests
for unanimous consent to propose any motion; and, provided that
when no member rises to speak or at 12 a.m., whichever is
earlier, the House shall adjourn to the next sitting day.
If this motion is adopted, the Minister of Foreign Affairs is
prepared to speak tonight.
1510
The Speaker: Does the hon. government House leader have
permission to put the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
TEAM CANADA INC.
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(1) it is my
honour to table before the House, in both official languages, the
1998-99 Team Canada Inc. achievement report. As members will know
Team Canada Inc. involves over 20 departments and agencies of the
Government of Canada, each touching in some way the aspect of
international trade.
* * *
COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY PERMANENT ENGINEERING BOARD
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat
Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2),
I am pleased to table in both official languages the annual
report of the Columbia River Treaty Permanent Engineering Board
to the Government of Canada and to the Government of the United
States for the year ending September 30, 1996.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 14 petitions.
[English]
I wonder if there would be unanimous consent to return to
presenting reports from committees.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there consent to revert to presenting
reports from committees?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 66th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in relation to its
orders of reference from the House dated Wednesday, February 17,
1999 and Thursday, February 18, 1999 in relation to the matter of
the molestation of the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt and in
relation to picket lines established to impede access to the
precincts of parliament.
After hearing the testimony of several witnesses and considering
all the evidence, the committee has concluded that there was no
deliberate intention to contravene parliamentary privilege in
this case. Any contempt of parliament was technical and
unintended.
The committee has also included observations and recommendations
to avoid similar situations occurring in the future.
I also have the honour to present the 67th report
of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
regarding the membership of the Standing Committee on Environment
and Sustainable Development.
1515
If the House gives its consent, I move that the
67th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[Translation]
PETITIONS
HOUSING IN NUNAVIK
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to table a petition
from the Inuit community of Puvirnituk, in Nunavik.
The petitioners state that there have been no housing starts by
either federal or provincial governments in Nunavik in the past
three years. At the present time, there are 16 to 20 people in
three bedroom dwellings.
The Inuit find the housing conditions at Nunavik extremely
distressing.
They consider the situation totally intolerable. It contributes
to the high incidence of tuberculosis, infectious diseases and
social problems.
The federal government must assume its obligations under the
James Bay and Northern Quebec agreement as far as housing is
concerned. At the end of October 1998, there was a shortage of
425 houses in Nunavik.
[English]
NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
privilege to present a petition from the constituents of Kelowna
who ask that the Prime Minister and the Parliament of Canada
declare and confirm immediately: first, that Canada is
indivisible; and second, that the boundaries of Canada, its
provinces, territories and territorial waters, may be modified
only by a free vote of all Canadian citizens as guaranteed by the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or through the amending
formula as stipulated in the Canadian Constitution.
BIOARTIFICIAL KIDNEY RESEARCH
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present another petition from citizens of Peterborough and
other parts of Ontario who believe that the Government of Canada
can deal more effectively with the more than 18,000 Canadian
citizens who suffer from end stage kidney disease.
They point out that facilities for kidney dialysis, which is
very important, and programs for organ transplantation are in
place but are ineffective.
Therefore, they call upon parliament to support research for the
bioartificial kidney, which will eventually eliminate the need
for both dialysis and transplantation for those suffering from
kidney disease.
The petitioners and others were pleased to hear that donations
to the University of Michigan, which is one of the few sites
where bioartificial kidney research is going on, made by
Canadians are tax deductible.
KOSOVO
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition from the constituents of
Kings—Hants, a group of whom are opposed to the NATO bombing in
Serbia and who are seeking the cessation of Canada's
participation in the NATO exercise.
MMT
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am honoured to present
a petition signed by residents of the Grand Bend, London and
Dashwood areas who urge parliament to ban the gas additive MMT.
They note that studies under way at the University of Quebec are
showing adverse health effects, especially on children and
seniors, and that car manufacturers oppose the use of MMT.
PAY EQUITY
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of the
citizens of my riding of Selkirk—Interlake who note that the
Government of Canada has yet to comply with article 11 of the
Canadian Human Rights Act which pertains to the rights of workers
to equal pay for work of equal value.
The petitioners say that to this date the government has not
complied with the tribunal order and they therefore petition
parliament to instruct the government to immediately comply with
the orders of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in the matter of
pay equity.
ANIMAL ABUSE
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will
be presenting three petitions on behalf of the Minister of
Justice.
The first petition calls upon parliament to enact legislation to
amend the Criminal Code to provide increased penalties for
serious cases of animal abuse and to make illegal the practice of
inhumane euthanasia for companion animals.
PAY EQUITY
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition deals with pay equity.
PORNOGRAPHY
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition concerns pornography.
1520
COPYRIGHT BOARD
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition on behalf of over 100 Canadians.
The recent commercial television and radio decision of the
copyright board retroactively reduced the royalties of Canadian
music creators and adopted the American practice of forcing
individual music composers to negotiate directly with large
broadcasting corporations. By adopting the American scheme the
copyright board has failed to respect parliament's longstanding
commitment to the collective administration of the copyright of
Canadian creators.
The petitioners request that parliament strongly reaffirm this
commitment and that the Minister of Industry immediately appoint
a judge to chair the copyright board and respect parliament's
intent that the board be a competent and objective quasi-judicial
tribunal.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present two petitions, both of which are signed by
a number of Canadians, including those in my own riding of
Mississauga South.
The first petition is on the subject of human rights. The
petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that
human rights abuses continue to be rampant around the world in
countries such as Indonesia and Kosovo. The petitioners also
point out that Canada continues to be internationally recognized
as a champion of human rights.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Canada to continue to speak
out strongly against human rights abuses and also to seek to
bring to justice those responsible for such abuses.
THE FAMILY
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am proud to present for the 158th time in my career as a
parliamentarian a petition dealing with the family, which is my
favourite petition.
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
contribution to our society and that the Income Tax Act
discriminates against families who choose to provide direct
parental care to preschool children.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon parliament and all
parliamentarians to support initiatives to ensure fairness and
equity for all families who choose to provide care in the home
for preschool children.
SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am
pleased to present a petition on behalf of the residents of
Kamloops, Chase, Clearwater, Barriere and Savona, who point out a
number of concerns they have regarding a recent United States
customs announcement which will put in place additional barriers
to the export of Canadian softwood lumber to the United States.
The petitioners ask the federal government to take whatever
action is necessary to bring to an end this continuing harassment
of Canadian producers.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the following
questions will be answered today: Nos. 128 and 205.
.[Text]
Question No. 128—Mr. Lee Morrison:
For Canada Ports Corporation, would the government provide the
following for each fiscal year from 1993-94 to 1996-97: (a) the
number of people on the board of directors; (b) how each
director was remunerated; (c) the total remuneration for each
director; (d) the total number of employees; and (e) the
average and median salary for all employees?
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): (a) Board membership in 1993: 15-17 members;
1994: 13-16 members; 1995: 14 members; 1996: 10-11 members; and
1997: 10-11 members
Section 12(1) of the Canada Ports Corporation Act stipulates
that the board of directors consists of a chairman, vice-chairman
and not less than 8 or more than 14 other directors. Variances in
board membership are a result of vacancies not immediately filled
by the minister with the approval of the governor in council.
(b) Pursuant to subsection 3.14(8) of the Canada Ports
Corporation Act, directors, including the chairman and
vice-chairman, are remunerated as follows: $150-300 per diem for
attendance at meetings of the board or committees of the board;
$150-300 per diem for loss of income when travelling for the
corporation's business; $150-300 per diem when with the
authorization or approval of the board a director engages in work
for the corporation; reasonable expenses incurred in the course
of duties in the city in which they are based; reasonable travel
and living expenses incurred while absent from ordinary place of
residence in the course of duties; and a salary in the range of
$119,900 to $141,100 is paid to the president.
People on the Board of Directors are remunerated as follows: the
chairman-annual retainer, $30,000-$35,000; the
vice-chairman-annual retainer, $17,000-$20,000; and an annual
retainer of $2,600-$3,500 paid to all directors.
(c) In accordance with the Privacy Act, only general statistical
information on the total remuneration for all directors can be
provided, instead of for individual directors:
Year—Honoraria—Per Diem—Total
1993—$91,000—$188,000—$279,000
1994—$89,800—$167,000—$256,800
1995—$68,700—$128,300—$197,000
1996—$42,800—$81,800—$124,600
1997—$51,000—$58,100—$109,100
Note: The Canada Ports Corporation directly administered
national office and seven divisional ports during the period 1993
to 1997.
(d) total nomber of exempt, union, and non-exempt, non-union,
employees at National office and seven divisional ports:
1993: 183 employees
1994: 185 employees
1995: 154 employees
1996: 109 employees
1997: 102 employees
(e) Average and median salary for all exempt and non-exempt
employees at national office and seven divisional ports:
—Average—Median
1993: $53,503—$75,986
1994: $51,717—$75,986
1995: $54,804—$73,648
1996: $55,777—$74,842
1997: $49,517—$77,007
Question No. 205—Mr. Jason Kenney:
For the years 1994-97 inclusive how many residents of Manitoba
had confidential taxpayer information disclosed by the Department
of National Revenue to the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation
or any other Manitoba agencies and departments without their
written consent through release form T1013?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): T1013 is the form which authorizes accountants and tax
preparers, acting on behalf of clients, to provide consent for the
release of relevant taxpayer information. Therefore, it would not
be applicalbe in the release of taxpayer information to the
Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, MPIC. Such information can
only be released to MPIC when the taxpayer has signed and
approved consent form which provides a clear statement that the
Department of National Revenue may release information to MPIC.
Following a complaint received from a taxpayer in November 1997
regarding the release of information to MPIC, the Department of
National Revenue reviewed the consent form being used by MPIC to
obtain authorization to request taxpayer information relevant to
the processing of claims. As a result of the department's review,
the form was modified to meet current standards to ensure that
there is no ambiguity about the release of information the client
is authorizing.
A complaint was also filed with the Winnipeg city police and the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police that investigated this matter. Both law
enforcement agencies found that there was no criminal intent and
that charges were not warranted.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[English]
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers No. 55, in the
name of the hon. member for Cariboo—Chilcotin, and No. 56, in
the name of the hon. member for Charlesbourg, are acceptable to
the government, except for those documents which cannot be
released pursuant to the Access to Information Act. These papers
will be tabled immediately.
That a Humble Address be presented to His
Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this
House a copy of all correspondence between the Government of
Canada and the United States Environmental Protection Agency and
United States Customs relating to intelligence and surveillance
capacity concerning ozone-depleting substances.
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of
all documents, reports, notes, memorandums, letters,
correspondence and minutes of meetings regarding the use of
inmates of federal institutions as guinea pigs in experiments on
the effects of LSD and, in particular, the report commissioned by
the Solicitor General of Canada from the McGill Centre for
Medicine, Ethics and Law.
The Deputy Speaker: Subject to the reservations expressed
by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the House
that Motions Nos. P-55 and P-56 be deemed to have been adopted?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all other
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to
stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that the remaining
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers shall stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1525
[English]
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1999
The House resumed from April 12 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-71, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget
tabled in parliament on February 16, 1999, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to Bill C-71, the
budget implementation act of 1999. The premise today is that it
is a great budget that will be easy to implement because it was a
great process.
It is on the ground that problems are felt, it is on the ground
that real solutions are formulated and it is on the ground that
budgets are implemented. I hope we will never return to the day
when ministers of finance and a few close advisors cloister
themselves and then come out of their perceived telephone booths
to announce to Canadians what they think is good for Canadians.
We know that does not work. People do not want to be told what
is good for them when they have not been included in the process.
I have been pretty fortunate to have come from an institution
like Women's College Hospital. Women's College Hospital had the
motto “Non quo sed quo modo”, meaning that it is not only what
we do but how we do it. It is very interesting that when we have
a motto such as that we actually look at the way we do things.
In the federal budget there are two hows: how we decide what we
want and how we do what we want. It was indeed the process in
terms of how we decide what we want, the thorough consultation
and rigorous analysis of this budget, that has ensured its
relevance to Canadians and thereby its success in implementation.
It is a feminist theory, if we are allowed to use that term,
which I am proud to use, that is actually part of inclusive
decision making. One of my great heroes, Ursula Franklin, once
told a story of being invited to a PD day at a school. She
insisted that all of the staff be included. The teachers thought
that maybe just the faculty should be included. However, because
the topic of the day was identifying children at risk, Ursula
felt that she would like to have all of the staff there.
It was quite interesting that as they began the day, within the
first half hour the janitor put up his hand and said “I know
kids from violent homes because they are on the doorstep when I
open up the school in the morning”. It was in the next half
hour that the Jamaican cook put up her hand and said “I know who
the kids are who are hungry because they help me clear the
plates. I know they are eating the scraps on the way to the
kitchen”.
It is only through inclusive decision making that we end up with
a result that is relevant and one which we can implement.
As a new member of the finance committee I was truly impressed
with the inclusive nature of the process, with the thoughtful and
impressive deputations and with the ability to analyse problems,
present solutions that had been tried in other jurisdictions,
present the risk of doing nothing and the rationale for
government to invest in these solutions.
We heard from the grassroots across the country. We heard from
the researchers, the policy analysts and the business community.
We heard concerns of health care, brain drain, decreasing
disposable income and our debt. We also heard their solutions.
They felt that reinvestment in health care was imperative. They
felt that we should reinvest in research, target tax relief and
get our debt to GDP in line. We heard from all of the partners
whom we will need to implement these policies.
On February 16 the Minister of Finance presented what I think
was a brilliantly crafted balance of the solutions presented.
The availability of resources were allocated according to the
priorities stated by Canadians. Health care was without a doubt
number one. Our most valued social program received the major
investment.
It was clear that just money would not ensure the restoration of
Canadians' confidence in the system. Experts, including the
National Forum on Health, have been very clear. There has to be
real accountability for the dollars spent. There have to be
dollars for a health information system that will begin that
process. The Canadian Institute of Health Research will begin
the exemplary process of co-ordinating research in the broadest
definition of health from the molecule to the community. We
will be able to look at health promotion, disease prevention and
treatment and research into best practices in health care
delivery.
We know that best practices could save an additional $7 billion a
year.
1530
The 1999 budget was exciting because of the other how also, the
second how of how we do things. That is the landmark agreement of
the social union. It will begin a process by which the federal
and provincial governments will commit to a new transparent
method of delivering programs. They will have to report their
outcomes to Canadians.
Our Prime Minister's commitment to getting the health accord and
the social union signed has rendered the dollars assigned in this
budget even more important. Canadians can now be assured that
every dollar will go as far as it possibly can. Evaluation and
accountability are now imperative. The new social union
framework values Canadians' equality, respect for diversity,
fairness, individual dignity and responsibility, mutual aid and
our responsibility for one another. These things have been
agreed upon.
It is no longer the survival of the fittest in this big cold
country. A long time ago we decided that we would look after one
another. We are not going to be asking levels of government to
report to one another; we are asking all levels of government to
report to Canadians.
That all Canadians are created equal and should be treated equal
and equal per Canadian funding was a principle of the social
union.
We have to meet the needs of Canadians with sustaining social
programs and services. We have reaffirmed the Canada Health Act
in active participation in a social and economic life.
The second principle was mobility. This will allow Canadians to
pursue opportunities. It ensures what is so important, that a
Canadian is a Canadian.
The third premise which is extremely important is the public
accountability and transparency in terms of getting the health
information systems, achieving and measuring results, involvement
of Canadians and ensuring fair and transparent practices. It is
this point that will make every dollar spent in the budget go
that much further.
Working in partnership for Canadians, joint planning and
collaboration, reciprocal notice and consultation was the fourth
aspect.
The fifth aspect was a proper clarification of the federal
spending power. This means that dollars assigned in a federal
budget have been predetermined and will be easily implemented.
Dispute avoidance and resolution was obviously important, as was
the three year review.
In my riding there was great debate before the budget about
giving dollars to the provinces in the CHST. One very adamant
constituent was very clear at our prebudget consultation that we
were not to just give money to Mr. Harris.
The signing of the social union health accord has been a
tremendous step forward for our federalism. Canadians need to
feel confident that dollars dedicated for health care would be
spent on health care. The commitment to transparency is
imperative to rebuild the confidence of Canadians. It makes me
very optimistic in terms of the truly positive role for
government.
Social union will ensure that Canadians will continue to be
consulted to set their social priorities. The federal and
provincial governments have to make sure that it happens. It is
only in that way that we get to deal properly with the tough
issues like the preschool development of our children,
homelessness, and persons with disabilities which cross all
ministries and all levels of government.
Last week in St. Paul's we had a town hall meeting with the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. We also had a panel
consisting of Lorne Sossin, a constitutional lawyer; Barbara
Cameron, a professor of political science from York University;
Martha Friendly, a child care researcher; and Andrew Coyne. It
was an interesting debate in St. Paul's, a riding that is known
for caring desperately about the big picture and putting Canada
first.
It came from that meeting how complex our federalism is and how
important it is that we deal with a matrix of responsibilities,
accountabilities, but together set some real objectives as to
what it means to be a Canadian and what we care about. It is
imperative that we move forward with our partners, the private
sector, the third sector and our provincial colleagues.
We have our choices, our policy levers and our incentives and
our programs. We actually continue to ask Canadians at election
time what they care about. We tell them how we interpreted that
in our speech from the throne, but it is at budget time where we
get to set the priorities that came forward with the dollars that
have been allocated.
1535
This budget was a balanced one. It reflected the true
priorities of Canadians as they said to us. Therefore it will be
an extraordinarily easy budget to implement because the people
implementing it were the people involved in deciding what was
there.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
pleasure of working on the finance committee with the hon.
member. It is always fun to get into the debates and ask
questions of witnesses when they come to our committee. I have a
couple of questions for the hon. member.
She talked a little bit about this new federalism. The Prime
Minister and the health minister with the collusion of the
finance minister have altered our Constitution. By using the
federal spending power, they have basically held a club over the
heads of the premiers of the provinces and have thereby intruded
into what is constitutionally a provincial jurisdiction.
Even though I say this somewhat reluctantly, I think it was
probably only the premier of Quebec who had—what do you call it
in French—the chutzpah to stand up against what the government
is saying. Of course, Quebec got the money anyway so it did not
really matter. The other premiers did not do this.
I have quite a concern about the federal government taxing the
dickens out of us. We are overtaxed and we are talking here
today about the budget. We are taxed like anything. Most
families have noticed the tax pressure. The provinces have
reduced tax room because of this. The federal government by
taking all this money from us, really backs the provinces into a
corner in terms of economic freedom of what they can do to manage
the health care system. Then this government turns around and
says “Okay, we are going to give you some of your money back but
the condition is that it must be used only for health”. That is
a straight violation of the Constitution of Canada. Most
constitutional experts say that.
While I certainly share the concern of the member with respect
to health and the funding of health, we know that this government
by its reduction of the transfers to the provinces over the last
number of years has made a substantial negative impact on the
reduction of health care services for Canadians. The Liberals
are now gingerly giving a little bit of it back and they say that
is helping while at the same time they are breaking the
Constitution.
I would sure like to hear the comments of the member on that
particular subject.
Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I think the issue is
the provinces all have agreed that this is necessary. There was
no club to their heads. Even Quebec signed a health accord
saying it was extremely important that people understand what it
is for.
Constitutionally, actually it was only hospitals that were the
provincial responsibility. There has always been an agreement
that health care is a joint responsibility in terms of what we do
federally, research and prevention and all of those things.
What is imperative is that throwing money at problems without
any accountability would not be acceptable to any taxpayer or any
business person. We are saying there has to be a set of
objectives and we will then figure out what the performance
indicators are, what are the kinds of things that the various
sectors can agree on as to what is acceptable.
I agree that you cannot start measuring things unless you have
an ability to remedy the things that are not working properly. A
1995 document from the University of Ottawa and Queen's
University made it clear that if we moved to what is in the
social union, best practices, we would be saving $7 billion a
year in health care.
We are doing too many unnecessary surgeries. We are giving
antibiotics for colds. We are doing way too many things that are
totally ineffective. We are ordering tons of laboratory tests
that have been outdated for 20 years.
We need a way to help the provinces share best practices and
help them save money to be able to provide exemplary and optimal
patient care.
This is not going to be if we keep allowing money to go places
without the kind of scrutiny and accountability Canadians expect.
1540
I am thrilled that these two things have come together. It is
amazing that the hon. member would say that there was a club to
the heads of the provincial premiers. They all willingly signed
it.
The social union talks about transparency. It talks about best
practices. It talks about accountability. It talks about
involving Canadians in setting their social priorities.
Hopefully at the end of the turf war of we are going to set some
objectives and promise Canadians that they are going to happen
together. It is the beginning of trying to get some sense out of
this very complex federalism.
There were experts present at our town hall meeting last week.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs was fabulous in
explaining that fact and compared this to other countries. For
example in the United States, unless the states sign on to
lowering the driver's age they do not get any money for highways.
We could not pull that off in Canada if we tried. Canadians
would not want that kind of power for the central government.
There is also huge power for the provincial premiers. We have an
interesting complex tug in terms of tension. This has been a
brilliant piece of work that a lot of us were very worried about
before. It is thrilling to actually see this work and now be
able to implement things, to put the meat on the bones of the
social union, get these sectoral agreements going, start setting
objectives and actually give Canadians a bang for their buck.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to put a question to the member for St. Paul's.
We will recall that, on February 4, 1999, under the social
agreement signed by the premiers, except the Premier of Quebec
naturally, and the Prime Minister of Canada, the Government of
Canada promised to consult the provincial and territorial
governments at least a year before renewing or significantly
changing the funding of the existing social transfers to the
provinces.
My question is as follows: How do you explain the government's
going back on its word and its signature, since two weeks later,
the federal government radically changed the formula for
allocating social transfers among the provinces? Please explain
this change and this going back on its commitment.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member knows that he must address
the Chair and not the member directly. The hon. member for St.
Paul's.
[English]
Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I would draw the hon.
member's attention to the principle of the social union which was
to treat all Canadians with fairness and equity. It was
extraordinarily important to the finance minister and to the
government that all Canadians receive on a per capita basis their
rightful percentage of the CHST.
It was an anomaly that had been capped by the previous
government and it needed to be right. It needed to be fair. It
is part of the social union principle that all Canadians be
treated equally. Therefore that was reflected in the budget.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
brief question.
It is very clear where authority lies for health care. It is
under section 92. It falls within the realm of the provincial
governments. I would like the hon. member to tell the House where
she sees within the BNA act, the Constitution of this country,
authority of the federal government over health care. If she
could tell the House that I would be pleased.
1545
Ms. Carolyn Bennett: The issue is health care delivery
and there has been a consensus that health care delivery must be
dealt with by the province. Some of the standards that have been
set in terms of the Medical Research Council of Canada and all of
the things we have had before have always had joint agreement in
terms of—
An hon. member: Where is the authority?
Ms. Carolyn Bennett: I will be more than happy to find it
but I do trust—
An hon. member: The spending power, the federal spending
power.
Ms. Carolyn Bennett: It is in the federal spending power
to set priorities which we think are in the best interest of all
Canadians. That is separate from health care delivery.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, budget
implementation is of great interest to me because the budget was
characterized as a “health budget”. We have heard a lot about
the health budget. The previous speaker being a physician and
rather glowing about the budget obviously believes it was a
health budget.
One issue has been fascinating to me. I have had an opportunity
to go about the country and express this sentiment. The Liberal
government has promised to put $11.5 billion back into health
care over the next five years. There was a significant amount of
advertising to that effect. One would not think that it would
have to advertise such good news. One would not think it would
have to spend $2.5 million to tell everyone. That message should
go across the country, it is so exciting.
Why did the government have to advertise it? In truth it had to
advertise it because in the previous five years it took out $21.4
billion cumulatively since the day the finance minister took
over.
I asked kids in grade eight what they thought of that as a
balance and they said “Doc, we don't think that is a very good
balance. Doc, we think that is a crazy balance”. I have a
little graphic that I used. I cannot use props in the House but
I can describe a prop in the House. Here is the prop I used to
show what the Liberal government did with medical funding for the
provinces.
I held up an intravenous bag with 1,000 cc's of IV fluid in it.
I coloured the fluid red so it would like blood. Some of my
colleagues have seen this. The 1,000 cc's represents the $1,453
per taxpayer that was being transferred from the federal
government to the provinces for health care when it took over.
Then I held up another bag with 596 cc's of IV fluid in it.
There is a significant difference. Anyone looking at it would
say that it just about half, which is true. That is what the
federal government was transferring per taxpayer for medicare
just before the budget.
Then I took a big syringe and put about 100 cc's into the IV
bag, which pumped it all the way up to 692 cc's. I showed the
two bags, the full one and the one with 692 cc's in it. We must
remember that it was at 1,000 cc's when I started and now it is
down to 692 cc's. The response to that is dramatic. People just
say it is not keeping up.
What has been the result, the practical down to earth result?
The public does not really give a hoot about jurisdiction. If
there were no effect on health it would say that was not a big
deal, but the evidence of problems in our health care system are
legion.
I have chosen to look at the newspaper reports over the last
little while. There are too many for me to go through. It would
take my whole speaking time.
However I will touch on just a few of the recent news reporting
relating to health.
1550
In Newfoundland 600 people need heart surgery every year. The
province can only afford 400 so 200 have a choice. They can get
in a waiting line or they can go across the border to the States.
On January 19 this year every surgery was cancelled at the
Kelowna General Hospital in B.C. Why? Because there were not
enough beds and personnel to look after them. That comes from
the CANOE news of January 19. On and on they go. There are
dozens of examples.
Women in Summerside, P.E.I., have to wait one year for a
mammogram because one machine broke down and the government there
cannot afford the $75,000 to fix it. How will it get fixed? The
foundation will go out and raise private funds to look after
that.
In Montreal the waiting list for a hip operation can be as long
as 15 months. For gallstone surgery, which is a painful
condition, it takes 2.5 months. That information comes from the
Gazette.
Here is another very interesting one. Patients in Manitoba
waiting for an MRI are being offered from a private U.S. medical
clinic in Fargo, North Dakota, a charter air service and free
night in a hotel so that they can get a timely MRI. How many
Manitobans have taken advantage of that? There have been 120
Manitobans who have said they will not wait. That was in the
Winnipeg Free Press on January 27.
At the Grace Hospital in Winnipeg there were corridors jammed
with patients. There was no room for them in the wards. In one
case there was no room to put a baby that had sadly passed on so
nurses hid the little baby behind a curtain while doctors worked
on other patients beside it.
An elderly man was incontinent after days of near neglect in a
hospital. His friend asked a nurse to put diapers on him. The
response was “We don't have diapers. You must go and buy those
yourself”. On it goes.
It is interesting. We have a nursing strike right now in
Saskatchewan demonstrating stress. We have an exodus of trained
health care workers. In the last two years 1,400 of our best
trained specialists have left and will never return.
The federal government can say all those things are provincial
and we do not have anything to do with that. There is, however,
a hospital at Sioux Lookout. It is interesting that the health
minister mentioned it in question period today. I will go
through the story of the Sioux Lookout Hospital which is a
federal responsibility. This is a hospital for natives alone.
The federal government has complete responsibility for that
hospital.
This is a story of incompetent bungling. In the spring of 1997
Health Canada was first warned that a crisis at the Sioux Lookout
Hospital was coming. I have three letters directed to the
Minister of Health and his officials which said there would be a
shortage of physicians at the hospital.
The story is quite interesting. The University of Toronto had
been looking after physician recruitment for that area for 30
years and a deficit had occurred. They said they could not
continue to look after the deficit. They warned that by June
1998 they would be pulling out unless that deficit could be taken
care of. It was simple.
Mae Katt, Ontario regional director for Health Canada, said
there was no problem, that they would have 15 physicians from
McMaster on that date.
The conditions deteriorated. The warnings were raised. Health
Canada refused to respond to the University of Toronto. McMaster,
negotiating with the Sioux Lookout individuals and this Mae Katt,
just simply said it could not do it in time.
What happened on June 30? This could not happen in a third
world country. With five hours notice the Sioux Lookout
emergency was closed. A closed sign was put up in an emergency
department for natives and 16,000 natives were without emergency
care.
1555
A contract finally appeared. It was a like a contract for an
F-18. It had nothing to do with medical issues. Things were
crossed out and whited out. The physicians who were there just
simply said they could not sign it. They were threatened with
losing their seniority if they did not sign it. They lost their
seniority. They left the north. Instead of 15 physicians
looking after Sioux Lookout, today there are 4.
I have been privileged to look over this story and finally, in
the last month, advertising has gone out for recruiting. Anyone
who knows anything about recruiting physicians for the north will
know how long that will take. We will not have physicians in the
north until this summer at the very earliest.
What did the hon. member for Kenora—Rainy River have to say
about this? These are his words relating specifically to Sioux
Lookout:
The medical services branch has totally bungled everything here.
This issue has been totally mismanaged.
The Liberal member for Kenora—Rainy River did everything he
could do to get our Minister of Health to listen. He begged him.
Do we know what his response was? The minister sent up one of
his underlings who said there was a nursing crisis that was just
as big. That was the response of Joanne Meyer, an executive
assistant. They went over the nursing crisis. We would think
that there would be an immediate response.
There was an immediate response. Here is the letter sent by the
native communities to the World Health Organization in Geneva,
Switzerland, begging for some help. We go to Switzerland to look
after our native brothers in the north. They went to Doctors
Without Borders.
[Translation]
They were cared for by Doctors Without Borders. It is
absolutely abominable.
[English]
Sioux Lookout is an example of how the federal government looks
after its specific responsibility. The diary of this story is
not through. The natives today in Sioux Lookout are on a hunger
strike. They are sitting there with their arms folded, saying
this should not happen in a country like Canada, but it did.
Now the Minister of Health, belatedly, will trot up north, sit
down with them and say “Come and get involved in my task
force”. I would like him to say why he did not respond to
these problems when he got the initial warnings two years ago. I
am willing to provide the letters specifically directed toward
the Minister of Health to anyone who wants to see them. Sioux
Lookout is an example of a tragic situation in Canada.
Time is so short. After talking about the bungling at Sioux
Lookout, let me talk about the bungling on the hepatitis C issue
in Canada. As a physician I gave my patients blood. As a
surgeon I gave them blood. I trusted that our blood system was
as good as it could be. I found out through Judge Krever that
was not true, that we gave patients in Canada dirty blood, blood
infected with hepatitis C.
Judge Krever, who became our expert in tainted blood, said we
should look after everyone who is sick from receiving tainted
blood; not just give them money because they are positive with
hepatitis C but give them something if they are in trouble.
I understood what he said. I understood why he said that the
federal regulators had made a mess. He said the provincial
regulators had made mistakes and he said that the Red Cross had
been involved as well. I have watched with wonder how the
government could try to weasel out of that responsibility.
I have also watched with wonder a compassionate Ontario premier
say that he will not just give narrow compensation to the group
from 1986 to 1990 but will give compensation to everyone, and he
did that. I have watched Quebec now change its proposals. It is
looking at compensating everyone. I have watched as lawyers
argue, fight and bicker over the funds that should be going to
the individuals who are ill.
I had occasion to sit down with a few of them here in Ottawa just
the other night. I listened to them talk about their needs and
their worries. The local regional government is taking better
care of these individuals than the ones who are really
responsible.
1600
I have also watched Swiss authorities being charged and huge
sanctions put upon them for exactly the same actions in
Switzerland. I have watched the French authorities bring to
trial the prime minister, the health minister, the social affairs
minister of the day for the same actions. I wonder where are we
in Canada for these poor people with hepatitis C. I think this
will go down as one of the blackest chapters as it relates to
health. Of course, I point across the way for that
responsibility.
Let me talk briefly about the future of medicare as I see it. I
really and truly believe that this social program is so valuable
even though the Liberal motto seems to be “we will just hide our
heads in the sand and have the status quo”. I say that two tier
medicine is alive and well in Canada thanks to the Liberal
policies. There is one tier for the dead and there is another
tier for the waiting. That is said with tongue in cheek, but it
is truly sad.
What do we need to do to improve and protect this health care
system of ours? The first step needs to be funding that is not
hidden under the Canada health and social transfer. That was the
way the Liberals got away with this tremendous reduction in
funding. Health care funding from the federal government should
be so specific, so clear, so straight, so plain that no one could
ever get away with reducing it as they did. It should also be
indexed to inflation.
I would cast this Canada health and social transfer into the
dustbin of history and have health care funding so plain and
clear, as I said. We could have the other funding just the same.
That is something the Canadian Medical Association has called
for and it is certainly something I personally agree with.
We also need to stop thinking of this as a system, but think of
it as care. The patient must come first again. We have had a
health care system that has been driven by politicians, by
bureaucrats and frankly by the medical profession. I do not think
that is the way to drive this system. The solutions will come
from the individuals who are most affected. I would put the
patient first. We need specific mechanisms to reduce the waiting
lists in Canada.
Where will we go with our medicare system? It is fascinating.
Last Friday was the 15 year anniversary of the Canada Health Act.
Monique Bégin, a Liberal, a good Liberal, was responsible for the
Canada Health Act. I listened to comments made by her. She said
very plainly that the Canada Health Act needs to be revisited.
She said that there are breakdowns in the Canada Health Act.
What a brave woman. She is talking about looking after health
rather than the politicization of our health care system. That is
really, truly where I believe we should go.
I am quite optimistic about the future of our health care
system. If we can get away from the name calling, if we can get
away from speaking about basic changes to our health care system
as being an Americanization or two tier, if we can get down to
the level of actually looking at and trying to fix this system, I
think we have a real good chance.
I am optimistic because of New Zealand's experience. It came so
close to losing its health care system when it hit the debt wall,
and it did. New Zealanders lost virtually all their social
programs. Their senior citizens programs were battered. They
lost transportation subsidies. They lost all the subsidies for
their agricultural projects.
They did not lose their medicare. They did everything they had
to do to save their medicare system. They went so far as to put
advertising on their ambulances to pay for the fuel so they would
not lose their medicare system. They chose a route I do not
agree with. They chose the route of user fees to improve and
increase the cash flow for their medicare. But losing virtually
every other social program, New Zealanders clung to their
medicare system.
1605
As I consult with Canadians across the land, I hear them say
“Don't let go of this medicare system”. In my view, medicare
will survive not because of the actions of this Liberal
administration, but in spite them.
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two questions for the hon. member.
In the litany of individual provincial problems with health care
delivery the member made it sound like this is only about money.
I would ask the member to comment on the Ontario Hospital
Association's presentation to the finance committee. The
association said that this is not about money. This is about
mismanagement. It is about not having income-outcome measures and
setting best practices and those kinds of things.
How can the member prove that this is just about money? How can
he blame the federal government for what some people feel is a
mismanagement problem in terms of the delivery system?
I am astounded that as a physician, a profession which is
criticized for over-medicalizing our health care, the member could
actually think that we could fund a sort of fix it part of the
system instead of a holistic model that the patients know works.
A health transfer does not deal with the social determinants of
health, poverty, violence, the environment and all those things.
The only way to a sustainable health care system is to keep
people well and not let them get sick. It is only the doctors
that seem to have trouble getting the picture.
Mr. Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member missed
the initial comments I made. Those comments were fairly specific.
There will have been $11.5 billion put back into health over the
coming five years, with $21.4 billion taken out in the previous
five years. Does the member see that balance? My colleague will
shake her head and say this did not happen. I ask her to look at
the amount transferred to the provinces in 1993 and look at the
amount transferred at the end of the next five years. The member
will find that this is an incredible reduction.
My time is relatively short here but we could go beyond my
comments on the issue of mismanagement in the system and we
certainly should go beyond my comments. I am not trying to talk
about the whole health care system. I am talking about the
federal responsibility when it relates to the funding component.
If that is beyond the ken of the Liberals, I can understand why
they would go ahead and make those reductions and think they are
not a big deal.
Does the Ontario Hospital Association have the capability of
finding some mismanagement in the system? You bet and it
certainly should do that.
It is also interesting to note that the province of Ontario
spends more on medicare in one year than the federal government
transfers to the whole country. Where is the rubber hitting the
road? The rubber is hitting the road for the provinces and this
administration made it difficult for them. In spite of those
reductions the provinces found more money for health care.
It is a dreadful debate when we look at just a narrow component.
This government has done more to harm medicare than any other
government in Canadian history.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
to my colleague's very accurate description of the truly painful
situation in most hospitals. He is a doctor himself and can
describe up close what we see from the outside.
In my riding, a rural riding, there is the hospital in
Ste-Anne-des-Monts, the one in Maria, the one in Amqui and the one
in Matane.
1610
Having spoken with many doctors, nurses and especially patients,
I know things are difficult. When the Rochon reform began,
certain adjustments had to be made. Doctors and nurses,
particularly those on the front line, had to work twice as hard
to provide more or less the same level of care.
Last week, one of my friends died in the hospital in Rimouski.
Her husband and children told me she had received exceptional
care, despite all the federal cuts.
I take this opportunity to thank the doctors and nurses who deal
with this situation, who often work overtime with a limited
staff to preserve the quality of patient care.
I congratulate these people because they really care. When staff
cuts are made, it is not easy to continue to provide the same
quality of care, because we are dealing with human lives, not
objects.
I have a question for the hon. member, who is a doctor. Earlier,
he mentioned that many doctors are moving abroad, particularly
to the United States. Nurses are also leaving. Of course,
salaries are a factor. The fact that these people are not paid
the same as doctors in the United States might a reason for
their leaving the country.
Would it not be possible for a government to remove some of the
quotas in universities? As we know, there are quotas in medical
schools. It is hard to get accepted in medical school. We are
told there is shortage of doctors. I agree that doctors work
really hard, but there are not enough of them.
Does the hon. member think there is a way to train more doctors,
particularly in the regions? Each year, we have to go to the
universities, almost beg young doctors and give them special
benefits to convince them to come to our regions. Every year, we
have to go through this exercise, which should not be necessary,
in my opinion. The regions should be served as adequately as the
large urban centres. I would like to hear the hon. member on this.
Mr. Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, there is a big problem in rural
areas with the numbers of physicians and nurses.
They are not specifically money problems. There are equipment
problems. In some northern hospitals the equipment is inadequate
to meet the needs of patients and physicians alike.
There are other problems too. I toured Saskatchewan two weeks
ago, and 50% of physicians come from South Africa. There are no
more Canadian doctors in northern Saskatchewan. There are huge
problems.
Is there a solution to the recruiting problem? People do not go
up north. Those who practice in very difficult areas should be
adequately compensated. I agree with the member, there are huge
problems in rural areas.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
during the member's speech he referred to waiting times for
certain procedures. I believe he talked about hip replacements.
I wonder if the member would simply comment that it is hospitals
that have to deliver balanced budgets for their institutions.
There is a restriction on the operating theatre time that they
have, as well as on the amount that they have funded for
prosthetic devices.
Therefore, waiting times are not necessarily due to funding, but
rather to other factors beyond—
1615
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Macleod has a
brief response.
Mr. Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, the member is correct.
There is a whole host of factors concerning waiting lists. One
factor is the amount of money available for the prostheses
themselves. Another factor is the number of nurses and doctors
available to do that.
The fact is that waiting lists in Canada are the longest they
have been in history. I do not believe that is acceptable and I
look for solutions from an individual like this who is actually
constructive in his comments.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak to Bill C-71, the budget implementation bill.
I want to begin by advising Canadians about the process.
Canadians know that a budget was delivered by the finance
minister with a number of provisions, of which I will review a
few. Preceding the budget there were substantial consultations
with Canadians. I want to assure Canadians that there is much
more to the budgeting process than simply finance officials
determining how they might deal with the fiscal affairs of the
country.
The Standing Committee on Finance conducts an annual budget
consultation in which its members not only hear from officials as
to the current fiscal state of affairs and apprise themselves of
the current numbers, estimates and forecasts that are coming
forward, they also go across Canada to each and every province
and territory to consult with Canadians who wish to appear before
the finance committee to have their say as to what priorities the
government should have with regard to the next budget. That
process starts to take place just after the House resumes from
its summer recess.
During that process individuals, as well as groups and
organizations, come before the committee. They are on panels.
They have an opportunity to make their presentations orally and
in written form. They also have a dialogue with finance
committee members. There is often repartee where people are
asked to elaborate further on some of the matters they have
raised. There is no question, notwithstanding that people are
asked to come before the finance committee to present their views
on the national finances and our national budget, that many of
the groups focus entirely on their own specific interests without
putting them in the context of how they line up with the
priorities of all Canadians.
It is a very difficult process that we go through. The
committee is represented by all parties. In that process all
parties have an opportunity to make comments, to question
witnesses and to give the kind of input that I think is necessary
to craft a report which ultimately makes recommendations to the
government with regard to the options and opportunities which we
saw in our budget consultations.
When we finish our cross-Canada consultations we also receive in
Ottawa other expert witnesses representing major organizations,
such as research organizations, health organizations and major
national organizations on poverty. Poverty certainly was a very
large component of the testimony that was received by the
committee in its consultations across the country and indeed in
Ottawa. Health care was very strong. I recall a very strong
presentation about the significance of diabetes in terms of what
we could do with regard to funding and obtaining measurable
results to deal with the consequences.
There were also a number of economists. There were
representatives from organizations like the Fraser Institute and
the Caledon Institute of Social Policy who came to talk in a more
macro way about the kind of direction we are going in with regard
to estimates of growth and interest rates, with regard to the
strategy of having prudent assumptions and of having a
contingency for adverse economic fluctuations so that we would
ensure the budget would be balanced.
1620
All of these things come together in a very comprehensive way so
that parliamentarians from all parties can come up with a report.
That report, as I said, goes to the finance minister, to the
finance department and in fact is available to all
parliamentarians and all Canadians so that they can see the kinds
of things that were gleaned out of the consultation process and
the kinds of recommendations which flowed from those
consultations.
The finance committee has had quite a good track record in terms
of identifying substantive options and opportunities for the
government, and the process, I believe, has served us well.
Have we articulated in our reports the budget as we might
ultimately see it on budget day? No. There are always matters
which come from other sources for the government to consider, but
the consultation does serve Canadians very well.
I want Canadians to know that preparations are already in place
for consultations for the next budget, which will begin in
October. Canadians who wish to make representations to the
government and to the finance committee with regard to the budget
process are welcome to make inquiries and they can do that
through their member of parliament.
With that by way of background, I simply want to highlight a few
of the key budget themes or issues within the last budget to
remind members and to remind Canadians about where we are.
The budgets which have been brought down since the government
came to power in 1993 have built upon each other. Canadians will
know that the year the government came to power the deficit, the
excess of spending over revenue coming into the government, was
about $42 billion. It was a very significant burden to
Canadians. It has accumulated a large national debt which is
still there to be dealt with.
By taking prudent steps, by making sure that the fiscal
decisions of the government maintained its perspective with
regard to balancing the needs of Canadians, as well as our need
to get our fiscal house in order, we now have a balanced budget.
We no longer have a $42 billion deficit; we have a balanced
budget.
In the last few years, having balanced the budget, we have also
had an opportunity to make sure that we continue to meet the
social needs of Canadians, the health requirements, as well as to
pay down real debt. Canadians will be pleased to know that the
government is paying down its national debt each and every year,
not only meeting its interest payments but also paying down
principal payments, minimally at $3 billion a year.
As a result of these budgets there is some very good news. The
best way to balance our books and to pay down our debt is to make
sure that Canadians have the opportunity to have the dignity of
work, to be part of the paid labour force. Indeed, 453,000 jobs
were created in 1998 and another 87,000 jobs were created in
January of 1999 alone. Our unemployment rate has dropped. When
members came to this place in 1993 our unemployment rate was
about 11.2%. Today it is 7.8%. It is at the lowest level since
June of 1990.
We have had balanced budgets or better, which is expected this
year again, and the government is committed to balanced budgets
in the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. Canadians can be assured
that fiscal prudence and proper fiscal management of Canadian
taxpayers' money continues to be a top priority for the
government.
We must live within our means. We must service our debt. We
must pay down our debt. But we also must make sure that the
fundamental needs of Canadians with regard to health, education,
research and development, social programs and other things are
met to ensure that Canadians are taken care of and live in the
dignity to which they are entitled.
1625
As Canadians know, we are also making major investments in
health care. There will be an increase of $11.5 billion in
transfers to the provinces and territories over the next five
years, as was discussed by previous speakers. Breaking it down,
support for the provinces in health care will be increased $2
billion in the current fiscal year, with a further $2.5 billion
in each of the following three years.
We also propose to invest a further $1.4 billion over the
remainder of this year and the next three years to strengthen our
health system through research and innovation, and health
information efforts to prevent health problems and improve
services to the first nations and to the Inuit.
Canadians may have heard that recommendations such as report
cards for our health care system have also come in. The health
accord with the provinces is a major positive development on
behalf of all Canadians, as is the social union which has the
support of all but one province.
There are some major developments which actually complement and
tie into the budget initiatives which I have outlined.
We are also going to invest over $1.8 billion for the remainder
of the fiscal year and the next three years in support of the
creation, dissemination and commercialization of knowledge and to
support employment by building on the Canada opportunities
strategy. It means going after more job creation to promote an
environment with low interest rates so that companies will be
able to enjoy an environment in which economic growth and
expansion are possible and in which more Canadians who want the
dignity of work will have that opportunity, particularly our
young people who have experienced the highest levels of
unemployment in Canada for some time.
With regard to these overall themes, over three-quarters of the
new spending in the 1998-99 budget reflects two of the highest
priorities for Canadians. What Canadians told us through our
consultations and what they said directly to the Prime Minister,
the Minister of Finance and their members of parliament was that
they wanted increased funding for health care and access to
knowledge and innovation. In other words, there will be
education and the knowledge base will be built upon for Canadians
to learn, to ensure that they, particularly our young people, are
ready to take those jobs.
Canadians will also benefit from personal income tax cuts of
$7.7 billion over three years, for a total of $16.5 billion in
tax cuts in the 1998-99 budget.
Is it enough? Are those all of the things Canadians wanted?
There are many other aspects that would be useful which Canadians
are interested in promoting. However, we still have to maintain
fiscal responsibility in attempting to deal with our significant
priorities. We also have to continue to promote and stimulate
other areas. As I said earlier, each budget has built on the one
before it. We start to see the trend line. We start to see the
rebuilding of our fiscal health, and fiscal prudence continues to
remain the hallmark.
Others have talked about health care, so I will talk briefly
about income taxation. It is an issue that is going to seize the
House of Commons. It already has, to some extent, with regard to
the taxation of families. It will also seize the House because
there is a growing interest in income tax reform and in
continuing to reduce the tax burden of Canadians.
In lay terms, to reduce income taxes for Canadians means that
they will have more dollars to prepare for their retirement, to
spend and to stimulate the economy. I recall in one budget it
was referred to as a virtuous circle in which there are benefits.
In the 1998 budget there was a modest tax cut. There was a $500
increase in the personal non-refundable tax credit which went to
Canadians who earned less than $50,000 a year. In the 1999
budget that amount was increased by an additional $175, bringing
the total increase in the non-refundable tax credit to about
$675.
1630
In addition, that same amount was also extended in 1999 to the
remainder of taxpayers in Canada who made over $50,000 a year.
Non-refundable tax credits benefit all Canadians when we consider
the combined federal-provincial rates. It means that the $675 is
worth about 25 cents on the dollar of a non-refundable tax
credit. It is about $170 in the pocket of each and every
taxpayer. That is good news. It also helps to remove people who
work part time or are low income Canadians from the tax rolls as
a whole. Those numbers have also been significant.
The budget in 1998 began the process of eliminating the
surtaxes. We have a 3% surtax and a 5% surtax. The 3% surtax
was eliminated in 1998 for taxpayers with incomes of up to
$50,000. In the last budget the remainder of that building
process was to extend the elimination of that 3% tax increase or
the surtax on Canadian taxpayers whose incomes were in excess of
$50,000.
A couple of constituents wrote to me and spoke very strongly
about the 5% surtax which continues to exist. These surtaxes
were imposed as deficit elimination initiatives. Canadians know
we have a balanced budget. They are now asking, since it is
balanced, for the government to get rid of the 5% surtax. The
taxpayers are quite right.
We have to deal with that 5%, but there will be some backlash in
that regard because it will be seen as a tax break for the rich.
It will be seen that the highest income earners will get a
reduction or elimination of the 5% surtax which is applied
against their federal taxes otherwise payable in excess of
$12,000.
This generates for the Government of Canada about $650 million a
year. It is a substantial item and to eliminate it in one fell
swoop, or any of these items, would have put the balancing of our
books on an annual basis under some pressure and likely in
jeopardy. We must continue to balance our books and still be
within our means.
Although it is little comfort to those who are paying the 5%
surtax, they should know that the finance committee recognizes
the need to address that. In our report we recommended the 5%
surtax on Canadians be eliminated over a five year period by
reducing it 1% each year. That has not happened but it does
recognize the need for us to address it. It was $650 million
that instead of being eliminated was put into the health care
system. It was a choice to be made.
Although investing in our health care system benefits all
Canadians, the 5% surtax was a deficit elimination measure that
is still there. We have to deal with it and I know all members
will have to come forward with a position on the appropriate way
to address that $650 million. Because it must be eliminated,
what is the fairest way to do it? What is the most timely way to
do it and still maintain the priorities, the prudence and the
balancing of our fiscal affairs? That is certainly something
that will come before us.
In the 1998 budget there was a top up of $850 million provided
with regard to the Canadian child tax benefit. This was good
news for low income Canadians. We have had no shortage of inputs
from Canadians with regard to child poverty and family poverty.
The real issue is family poverty.
We invested an additional $850 million in the Canadian child tax
benefit. We could not have done that and got rid of the 5%
surtax of $650 million and maybe just put $200 million into the
child tax benefit. The priority was to address low income
Canadians who needed assistance.
1635
There are priorities and trade-offs. There are decisions we
have to make every year in every budget. We cannot do it all at
once but we are moving in the right direction.
I suspect Canadians well know this was a health budget following
on the heels of an education budget. I believe there is
substantial support in this place. I hope we will look again at
the priorities as we build on the fiscal renewal of Canada. I
hope children and the family will have a significant place in the
envelope of the next budget. I hope members will take the
opportunity to work with the finance committee and to consult
with their constituents to help us to identify the immediate
priorities, the medium priorities and the long term priorities so
all Canadians will benefit in the long term.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
colleague across the way mentioned income tax refunds.
I hope he knows that a taxpayer who makes on average $30,000 a
year will get a $90 tax refund; divided by 365 days, it is not
even enough to buy a cup of coffee.
Does he not believe that the best way to be fair to everybody
would be to index tax tables?
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understood
the member's question. If I understood him, he was referring to
someone making $30,000 a year only getting a $90 refund. That is
probably not the case.
If the withholdings or instalments were made there should be no
refund. Someone who makes $30,000 a year, assuming it is a
single person filing the tax return, would get a non-refundable
tax credit of $6,452. If he had bought no RRSPs he would be
paying income tax on about $24,000. Assuming a 50% provincial
tax rate, that would mean the effective tax rate of someone at
that level is about 25 cents on the dollar, so I would assume
that someone would pay income tax of about $6,000.
I am not sure if I misunderstood but Canadians do pay income
taxes. Someone who makes $30,000 a year pays about $6,000 in
income tax or about 20%.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the member referred to last year's budget as the
education budget. I remind the House that was the same year
12,000 students declared personal bankruptcy because of their
inability to get jobs and pay off their student debts. That was
the year of the education budget.
This year is the year of the so-called health budget. The
amount of money announced by the finance minister, although a
substantial $11.5 billion which by anyone's imagination is still
a lot of money, will only bring us back to 1995 spending levels
by the year 2005. In other words, we will be 10 years behind by
the time we catch up after the government having stripped $17
billion from that same budget. How does he square these numbers
as a CA?
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, sometimes I get a little
frustrated with the presentation of members with regard to
transfers. If members want to talk about the facts of health
care transfers, they know that the cuts to the provinces were a
lower percentage of provincial revenues than they were for the
federal government. In other words, the federal government cuts
to its own spending were higher than were asked of the provinces.
1640
Members will also know that the National Forum on Health, an
independent body, made the report that there was enough money in
the system but the problem was how it was spent, the wisdom of
spending money.
The member also did not say, and he should say, that the
transfers to the provinces were not just cash. There are tax
points. Even under the old system, as growth in the economy
occurred and the provinces were able to generate more money
through income tax revenue, the amount of cash was going down. We
have to take into account how much the cash transfers would go
down as a result of economic growth and increased tax revenues to
the provinces.
There is no question that there was a cut, but the member will
also have to recognize that the delivery of health care in Canada
is through the provinces. We have provinces such as my own
province of Ontario that decided to give 15% income tax cuts and
at the same time cut health care.
Where are the priorities of the province of Ontario? I know the
priorities of Mike Harris. Mike Harris wants to buy an election.
He cut health care. He cut it badly. It reflected on services
and I am not denying that, but the provinces have a
responsibility to deliver health care and Mike Harris did not do
it.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I too
listened with interest. I think the hon. accountant has his
numbers wrong. It is quite clear if we look at the actual
numbers that the amount being restored is considerably less than
the level before the Liberals took over in 1993. There was a
substantial cut.
For the hon. member and his colleagues to continually rip into
Harris in Ontario and Klein in Alberta for cutting health care is
like whipping a guy because he is running in a race and his leg
has just been cut off. They think that whipping him will make
him run faster. It just does not work that way.
Originally the federal government financed health care to the
tune of 50% of expenses. It has been cutting back, cutting back
and cutting back. That happened under the Conservatives and it
has been greatly increased under the Liberals. The fact of the
matter is that while the government is still continuing to tax us
more and more and more, it is giving back less and less and less
to the provinces. The poor provinces with limited funds just do
not have the money to put into health care.
If we take a province like Alberta, for example—and it is the
same in Ontario—the actual component of what the province has
put into health care has increased in the same length of time as
the government was cutting its funding for health care. Then the
federal government turns around and blames the provinces. It is
unjust. Let the hon. member try to defend that.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the member is incorrect. He
said the provinces did not have the money to put into health
care. Mike Harris cut income taxes at a cost to the provincial
treasury of $5 billion. The cuts to Ontario for health care were
under $1 billion. It is a matter of priorities. In Alberta the
Klein government is running surpluses and it cuts health care.
Why is it that a province can choose to give tax breaks, run
surpluses, cut health care and blame the federal government? The
Reform Party is suggesting in the alternative budget to cut $9
billion from spending on health care. The only way Reformers
will pay for the spending on health care is that they make a wild
assumption that the economy will grow by 5% a year.
When members are in opposition they can say a lot of platitudes
and make lots of promises without having to articulate exactly
how they will pay for them or how they will be delivered. That
is the difference. Canadians understand and I think they
reflected their understanding in the results of the election in
Windsor—St. Clair when the Reform Party did not even get its
deposit back.
Canadians will not stand for this nonsense of playing with
numbers. Let us always give them the facts and let Canadians
have an opportunity to understand those facts and decide.
As far as I am concerned members of the Reform Party continue to
give half the story and only the story that suits their own
purpose.
1645
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do believe
the hon. member is a member who does not mislead intentionally. I
would like him to respond to this simple question.
The Harris government has put $1.5 billion more into health care
than there was being spent in 1995. Would the member tell me
how he can make that a reduction in health care in Ontario? It
is not so; $1.5 billion more since 1995. Argue with that, if he
will.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that we cannot
have it both ways. Mike Harris is saying, “We've spent $1.5
billion more on health care than we did back in 1995”. That is
what he is saying to the public.
However, $750 million of that was severance costs for nurses. I
think he had to spend the same amount again to get them back.
That is not delivering health care.
The reason that I say we cannot have it both ways is that if the
member is standing in the House saying that waiting lists are up,
health care is down, health care is awful because we have had
these awful cuts from the federal government and yet the province
of Ontario delivered $1.5 billion more in spending, how do we
rationalize that we spent more but got less service? It has to
do with the provincial administration of health care.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order
38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight
at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, shipbuilding
industry; the hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière,
shipbuilding; the hon. member for Vancouver East, justice; the
hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, firearms registry.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with
your permission I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the
member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.
I am pleased to take the floor to cast light on what I consider
to be some of the most troubling aspects of the federal budget
of last February 16. Although my time is too short, I will
begin by addressing the underlying trends of this budget, which
are evidence of a growing desire by the federal government to
invade areas of jurisdiction defined by the constitution as
provincial.
Then I shall attack the myths being spread by the federal
government about Quebec's receiving its fair share of Ottawa's
spending, every year in every budget. To do so, I merely need
to refer to the insufficiency of job-creating spending by Ottawa
in Quebec on the one hand, and on the other the orgy of spending
on federalist propaganda in Quebec, spending that is anything
but job-creating.
The Martin budget confirms the Ottawa government's strong
tendency to use its spending power to gradually centralize all
power within its hands. The federal budget for 1999-2000 fits
within a continuing trend which is most revealing of the
long-term political objective of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Some editorials have rightly described this as a political
budget.
Once again this year, the federal government's spending
power is being used as a Trojan horse in order to sneak into
areas of provincial jurisdiction. After education, this year it
is health care, and this time there is no attempt at disguise.
The Canadian Constitution ensures that health is an exclusively
provincial responsibility. Yet this budget is taking away funds
the provinces need to administer their health systems so that it
can create bureaucratic monsters that will usurp provincial
powers and duplicate programs. The obvious purpose of this is
federal exhibitionism.
I was amused to hear my colleague from St. Paul's say ,in
response to a question from my Bloc Quebecois colleague on
social union, that health services were certainly a provincial
matter, but the establishment of standards was a federal matter.
I find that revealing. My hon. colleague considers therefore
that the establishment of standards is a federal responsibility,
while carrying them out is a provincial one. This is an
original view of an area of jurisdiction.
1650
In invading the health care field, the government did not trot
out a single Trojan horse, it released an entire stable of them.
These Trojan horses are the national health surveillance
network, the Canada health network and the Canadian institute
for health information. This last one is the most insidious,
since it amounts to putting Quebec and the other provinces under
guardianship in the area of health care.
The Canadian institute for health information will monitor,
diagnose and provide treatment to these health care networks,
unilaterally and against their wishes.
Furthermore, programs such as the research and evaluation fund
for nursing staff, prenatal nutrition, rural community health
and the telehealth pilot project represent very costly and
totally useless Canadian flags planted beside Quebec government
programs in these areas.
On the political level, it is remarkable that this slow job of
sapping provincial responsibilities has produced no major
reaction from the provincial governments, except that of Quebec.
Despite the commitments the provinces made in Saskatoon, they
signed the social union agreement without balking, selling the
birthright of their jurisdiction for a plate of federal largesse
lentils.
I come to the second part of my remarks. Ottawa has for years
claimed that Quebec receives more than its share of federal
budget spending. We must take the wind out of this statement
once and for all.
First, let us talk about equalization. What is the equalization
program? It is a federal initiative designed to compensate the
relative poverty of certain provinces. Sure, we get money under
that program, but why are we poorer in the first place? It is
easy to find at least one reason. It is well known that, given
its demographic weight, Quebec receives much less than it should
when it comes to productive investments and the procurement of
goods and services by the federal government.
Indeed, while Quebec accounts for 24% of the Canadian
population, it always gets less than 15% of the federal money
for research and development. By comparison, beloved Ontario,
which accounts for 37% of Canada's population, gets close to 60%
of that money.
This lack of productive spending is a fundamental cause of
Quebec's relative poverty.
Now, Ottawa is trying to justify its reduced social transfers to
Quebec with this compensation under the equalization program.
However, by its very nature, that compensation is absolutely not
guaranteed in coming years. This strange calculation clearly
sets a precedent which might later be used to justify the
reduction of overall federal spending in Quebec. This will
happen as soon as our province's economic situation changes, at
which time Quebec will become a contributor instead of a
receiver under the equalization program.
Like me, members probably wonder how Ottawa hopes to impress
Quebecers with this budget. While we do not have the federal
government's recipe to promote its visibility, we know those who
are trying to use it.
We also know of some of the ingredients used in that recipe.
There is the Canada Information Office, a propaganda tool with
some $21 million to spend this fiscal, the Treasury Board, and
the Department of Canadian Heritage, which have explicit
instructions to bury Quebec deep in directives and programs all
sporting bright red maple leaves.
How are we to explain that Ottawa spends close to 60% of its
Canada Day budget in Quebec every year? Flags, flags, and more
flags. They are the only thing the federal government gives us
way more than our share of.
In conclusion, I would say that the reaction, or non-reaction, to
this new federal budget in other provinces once again proves
that there are two incompatible visions of government in Canada:
Quebec's, calling for decentralization, and the rest of
Canada's.
1655
Quebec being in a minority in Canada, about the only option left
for Quebecers is to choose sovereignty or go along with a vision
of government at complete odds with what they believe in.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to have my turn to address Bill C-71, which relates
to certain provisions in the budget tabled in the House on
February 16.
A budget can be labelled either good or bad, and this is, I
believe, a bad one, because it contains some bad provisions. It
can also be looked at according to what it should contain but
does not.
As the member representing Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, I can be
excused for speaking of a matter of great importance to my
riding, the Lévis shipyard, and for pointing out that this
budget contains no additional measures relating to shipbuilding.
After a number of questions from us, mobilization of the unions
and demands from the shipbuilding association, the Minister of
Industry still maintains that there is, in his opinion, no need
for additional measures.
But what is it that the industry is calling for? Not subsidies
but tax measures, a loan guarantee program, consideration of
leasing as a tax compensation, as other major industries are
treated, including railways and especially aerospace.
In this budget, there is also a very glaring lack of new
measures to create employment and to help small and medium
businesses, although these are the main creators of jobs in the
country.
In addition to not creating employment, this budget adds nothing
to compensate for the cuts experienced by the regions,
particularly those affected by seasonal unemployment.
Obviously, each riding has faced cuts in this regard. In my
riding, the cuts to benefits amounted to $20 million or $21
million a year. That had an impact on the economy. In certain
ridings, however, in the more remote regions, which have
seasonal unemployment, it was even worse.
We would expect that the government would set aside additional
funds for these regions. Instead of doing that, it cut more
than $100 million in the budgets for regional development, in
the west, the maritimes and Quebec. It cut $27 million in
Quebec in regional development. Real sensitivity.
Yesterday, I spoke in the House on the motion by the member for
North Vancouver on western alienation over the money that comes
from Ottawa, or the way this money is managed for the west.
I not only mentioned the amounts allocated to regional
development in Quebec—because I am most familiar with this—but I
also noted certain anomalies.
For example, the figures I had for the first six months of 1998
indicated to me that the riding of Westmount—Ville-Marie in
Quebec received the most money for regional development, an
amount that is usually given for regions far from the major
centres. The riding of Westmount—Ville-Marie is represented by
the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
I note that in this period, the ridings represented by the
Liberal members had, oddly enough, budgets 50% higher than those
of other ridings in Quebec, regardless of whether they were
represented by Conservatives or members of the Bloc Quebecois.
That was fairly distressing.
In addition, there were cuts to employment insurance that
permitted the creation of an employment insurance fund. If it
were an independent fund, it would soon be worth $20 billion.
That is a lot of money.
1700
What takes the cake is to see the Minister of Finance use this
surplus to solve his deficit problems, pay back part of the debt
and use new money to intrude in provincial programs and
jurisdictions, especially since the social union agreement
reached with nine provinces.
In exchange for money, nine premiers out of ten gave up their
claims and told the federal government “these are not your
jurisdictions, but give us money”. Quebec did not sign that
agreement.
The cuts that this government decided to make to the transfers
to the provinces between 1994 and 2003 are of the order of $33
billion. This is not peanuts. But now the federal government has
decided to put money back in the health sector, to the tune of
$1 billion in Ontario and $150 million in Quebec. Ottawa also
gave a cheque of $1.4 billion under the equalization program,
but let us not forget that this same Liberal government cut $6
billion in the transfer programs for health, education and
social assistance. To give back $1.4 billion after making cuts
of $6 billion is not fair.
The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville spoke about something I
wanted to mention regarding equalization and tax points. Since I
do not have much time, I will not repeat the examples he gave,
but I will say that this is not necessarily linked to the
transfer payments, as a number of economists have shown.
These are pre-established formulas and the Liberals have nothing
to do with them. They were established through agreements a long
time ago.
It is exasperating for Quebec to see that it is not getting
funds through productive expenditures in the area of research
and development, and the procurement of goods and services. I
could start a war of numbers regarding taxation and equalization
payments, as the federal and Quebec governments did.
Quebec commentators and those who know history will recall that,
at first after Confederation, the federal government did not tax
individuals directly, the provinces did. The federal government
went about it indirectly through excise taxes and customs
duties. This is how it raised money.
As provided in the Constitution in cases of emergency and for
the sake of public order, during both world wars, the federal
government asked the provinces if it could tax Canadians
directly through personal income taxes. This was to finance the
war, but once it had a taste of it, it got used to it and never
went back.
It had reached an agreement with every province, except Ontario
and Quebec, in order to continue taxing Canadians directly.
Eight existing provinces had agreed. Ontario, which was
reluctant, finally came on board after it was offered a very
advantageous auto pact. Quebec found itself isolated, and since
that time we have been the only province where individual
taxpayers must file two returns, contradictory returns with
provisions that sometimes cancel each other out.
During a referendum on sovereignty, we will have to make it very
clear to people how urgent it is to repatriate all our taxes to
Quebec so that we can spend according to our own priorities.
Quebec has a distinct culture, and we do business in a distinct
manner. The Civil Code is distinct. In every field we see, feel
and act differently.
I conclude with the hope of being asked a few questions.
1705
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Canada Health Act is the instrument which the federal
government has to enforce health standards in this country.
There are five principles enshrined in the Canada Health Act.
One is universality, which means that the health care system is
for all Canadians. The second is comprehensiveness, which means
that it will cover medically necessary health costs for all
Canadians. The third is accessibility. it is accessible to all
Canadians. The fourth is portability so that no matter where you
are in Canada, no matter where you live and where you may travel
it is going to be available. Finally, it is publicly funded,
which means it is on a not for profit basis. That is why we do
not have a two tiered system. We do not have a system for the
rich and a system for those who do not have the funds. We have
one system for all Canadians.
How the federal government manages to enforce those standards is
by the cash transfer system. Before the CHST, under the old
system we had established program funding. One of the programs
was health care.
In Quebec's case, the combination of cash and tax points
amounted to what it was entitled to based on the funding
formulas. The cash portion in Quebec was going down and was
expected to hit zero. I believe the cash amount going to Quebec
would have been zero by the year 2005.
If that is the case, I simply ask the member, how can he argue
that there were transfer cuts which were inappropriate relative
to the Quebec situation?
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the
member who just spoke. I worked with him on the Standing
Committee on Health. He is a very caring person.
That having been said, I urge him to reread the Constitution.
Under health, the wording is very clear: except for certain
things, such as drugs, or the introduction of potentially
diseased animals or plants into the country, health is
recognized as a federal jurisdiction under the Constitution.
But for the rest, specifically health care administration, the
Constitution is very clear that this comes under provincial
jurisdiction.
We are forever hearing that, because certain provinces were
perhaps not operating exactly as the present federal government
would have liked, it is important that all Canadians be treated
the same.
This specious principle can be used to flout the Constitution.
That is what is creating problems.
After slashing EI and making all the other cuts mentioned
earlier, suddenly the federal government finds itself with a bit
more money. With this money, which belongs to Canadian
taxpayers, it wants to tell the provinces how to run their
health care systems. This is unacceptable.
It is also unacceptable that the premiers of all provinces
except Quebec agreed to the social union framework in order to
get money.
They renounced their powers and jurisdiction under the
Constitution for money. I dare not use the word that comes to
mind, because it would be unparliamentary, but I cannot help
thinking it.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty to
inform the House that the time for questions and comments on the
speeches is over. We will now go to 10 minute speeches with no
questions and comments.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, this debate is reminiscent of any budget debate. It
always amazes me to listen to the government side. The Liberals
have this institutional memory but it is a very selective memory
when they talk about what they have done in terms of the
management of the economy.
1710
Of course the Liberals refer back to the government I was a part
of. They blame the ills of the world on that previous
government. It is true that I was a member of that government.
We did not do everything wrong and we certainly did not do
everything right. But I remind the House that in the timeframe
of the Trudeau era, between 1968 and 1983 when the Liberals left
office, the federal debt increased by 900%. That is not a lot to
be proud of.
The Liberals fail to mention another statistic. It is a memory
lapse. It is a selective institutional memory I am speaking of
when I speak of the Liberals. They forget to remind the Canadian
public that program spending increased by 800% in that same time
period. It is important to put that on the record.
The government does take credit for some of what it has done and
maybe we could give it a little credit. It is talking about a
balanced budget which at first glance is pretty good. No one
will argue with that. It is something we would all like to see,
and apparently we have one.
This really confuses me. When the Liberals talk about this
balanced budget, they never talk about the $22 billion brought in
by the GST. I know why. Because everybody sitting on that side
of the House, with the exception of a few, were brought in on
that promise to scrap the GST. What happened to that promise? I
guess it got lost in the red book. I suppose the red books have
been recycled and are now compost. Maybe they are growing
tomatoes or something else with the remains of those old red
books.
The Liberals conveniently forget that $22 billion. Where would
their balanced budget be today without that $22 billion? They
would be far short of the mark. I can even see some government
members nodding in agreement.
There is another thing that is really interesting. Where is the
$26 billion in the employment insurance fund? Does that show up
somewhere in the books? My guess is that it does. The
government is effectively taking it out of the hides of employees
and employers. It is a hidden tax the Liberals are using to
balance their books.
Every time I speak on budget measures in relation to the
government, I am reminded of the old Mark Twain expression
“lies, damned lies and statistics”. I always question into
which category the minister's figures fit. It is probably the
latter category. There is also the old expression that liars
figure and figures lie. The minister is a master at manipulation
of the figures. The truth is they have balanced the budget and
they have done it on the backs of ordinary Canadians and on the
backs of the provinces.
The Liberals take great pleasure in calling it the health care
budget. The sad reality is that after putting back $11.5
billion, which is a lot of money if that is what they are putting
back, over the course of the next four or five years, in the year
2005 we will be back to the same spending levels in health care
that we were at in 1995. Can that by any measure be called a
success or an accomplishment? I would not call it that. There
is nothing to brag about in this budget when it comes to health
care.
I have a clipping regarding the health care budget. It comes
from the province that runs the Daily Gleaner. It was in
the April 12 edition of the Fredericton Daily Gleaner. It
refers to the 122 recommendations contained in a report for the
long term recovery of the New Brunswick health care system.
1715
There were 122 recommendations. Why so many? Because health
care was destroyed in every single province. Because premiers
like Premier Thériault in New Brunswick stood in silent agreement
as funding was ratcheted away from health care. Now they are
scrambling to pick up the pieces.
The premier is quoted as saying they cannot afford to do it.
They cannot afford to do it because it is going to cost the
little province of New Brunswick in the vicinity of $400 million.
A lot of that $11.5 billion that was announced as going back
into health care, is going to pay off previous debt incurred over
the last number of years since this government took office. It
is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
We have a crisis in the country and it is called health care. It
is quite interesting that the Liberals call it the health care
budget, but why not? Last year they called the budget the
education budget. That was the same year that 12,000 students
declared personal bankruptcy because of their inability to pay
off student debt and get a job. If this is the same type of
budget in terms of health care when compared to the so-called
education budget, then it is going to have a very short shelf
life indeed.
It does not stop there. Another difficulty we have in the
Canadian economy, which all goes back to the budget and the
management or mismanagement of the present government, is in
terms of productivity.
We have the lowest rate of productivity in the G-8. That is not
just me speaking. The government has been told this by a number
of people, including Sherry Cooper who is the chief economist
with Nesbitt Burns. If we do not believe her, how about Michael
Marzolini who is the Liberal Party's own pollster? He says that
Canada has the lowest rate of productivity among the G-7.
What is the difference if it is the G-7 or the G-8? Productivity
in this country is extremely low and it is costing us. The only
way we can compensate for that is with a low Canadian dollar, but
that is not the way to do it. What the country needs is sound
fiscal management. Unless we have that, our standard of living
is going to continue to decline year in and year out, which it is
doing.
The question we would ask ourselves is: What would happen in
Canada if the Canadian dollar suddenly rose? I know where we
would be. We would be in a heck of a lot of trouble, because the
government has paid scant attention to productivity. We are
relying on a low dollar to move our goods into the marketplace.
At the end of the day, we are all going to be poorer because of
it. There will be a day of reckoning.
The government does not want to talk about this. When it does
talk about it, it tries to remove itself from its own very words,
as did the Minister of Industry not long ago when he actually
gave a speech and spoke about our dismal productivity levels in
this country.
All I can say with the little bit of time I have left is that I
am pleased to take part in this debate. I think what Canadians
want is some real information from the government so we know
exactly where we stand in terms of the Canadian economy, in terms
of taxation and in terms of productivity.
Let us get real about some of those numbers. I see them always
hacking away at that so-called inherited $42 billion debt. Let us
talk about the 900% increase in that federal debt in the period
when the Liberals were in power from 1968 to 1983.
1720
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will comment about the broad economic
philosophy of the government as represented in the bill, and the
themes of its economic measures by using the example of some
aspects of the personal income tax form. For what we see helps
us put into perspective what social attitudes underlie the bill
before us today.
First, the big myth is that the Liberals are good managers of
the public trust. They are not. It is a myth that they have
presented balance to the country in their budgets? What myths. I
challenge the media and the folks at home to check the numbers
rather than the Liberals spinning machine. The Liberals have
shown not to be wise managers of the public trust.
Specifically, to help with general understanding today about the
appropriateness of the underlying philosophy of the bill, I cite
the historical social attitude of the Liberals toward traditional
families in the tax category where parents decide that one of
them will forgo a working income to stay home and provide quality
child care.
That social choice is denigrated by the government through its
tax policy. It is expressed clearly, in the unashamedly unfair
differences that it has given since at least 1993, and have
deepened in each successive budget. The government's record is
that it is not family friendly. Reformers have been talking
about it since 1993, but the news media has finally woken up, so
when we talk about it and make a point we are now getting it
reported.
The finance minister was wrong when he said that his tax
discrimination against one income, two parent families was a
recent issue for Reform. The Reform blue book as far back as
1993 said:
The Reform Party supports a revision of the federal income tax
regulations to end discrimination against parents who provide
child-care at home—and—supports equitable treatment for
one-income families with dependant children.
Our election platform of fresh start for the June 1997 election
clearly included the desired changes on taxation for families.
The Hansard shows that I spoke about it clearly in the
debate for last year's 1998-99 budget, because by then the hurt
against families was really getting deep.
We have been asking why the finance minister would not even
admit in the House that his policy documents and budgets have
delivered tax discriminations since his first budget in 1994. Why
will he not change? Perhaps because he is a Liberal and the
cabinet has a mindset of socialist engineering from another era
that it cannot let go of. Belatedly, he has now sent the hot
potato to committee. It will buy him some political time for
now.
The insincere answers that we have received in question period
from the finance minister on this subject is avoidance when he
claims we Reformers voted against budget measures related to
children. His falsity boggles. Reform has voted generally
against the tax and spend habits of the Liberals, not specific
child programs. We have voted against the lack of accountability
in government spending.
The budgets continue to spend too much, therefore tax too much,
and thereby the country still owes too much. It is about
competence to govern. It is about fairness. It is about helping
instead of hurting and equality before the tax law. It is about
a Liberal mean-spirited view of the family as expressed in tax
law, and about penalizing parents, like giving them a fine for
having a traditional family child care arrangement. What hurts
the most is that it does it openly and justifies it while it
calls us on this side of the House, who have defended the family
since coming here, as being just too negative.
The evidence is that the Liberal economic policies hurt people.
The whole country knows it, and I am again reminding the House of
this again today.
I ask: When will the finance minister provide the tax changes
we are talking about today? When will he begin to help rather
than hurt families with his tax discrimination? Roughly 82% of
Canadians want the tax code changed to make it easier for parents
with young children to have a parent stay at home. According to
a November 1998 Southam-Compas poll, this is a very high priority
for 42% of Canadians, a high priority for 23% and a priority for
17%.
The C.D. Howe Institute's latest report, entitled “Giving Mom
and Dad a Break”, states:
Current Canadian tax policy affords no universal recognition of
children. In effect, it treats children in middle and
high-income families like consumer spending, as if parents had no
legal or moral obligation to spend money on their care. This
treatment is indefensible.
The balanced budget was achieved by squeezing the people: 76.7%
of the balancing came from higher tax revenues; 14% from slashing
health and social transfers; 7.2% from cutting transfers to
persons; and a minuscule 2.1% by cutting federal spending itself.
Where was the government required to live within its means
instead of imposing on the weak individual taxpayer? Children
are directly hurt by Liberal policy design.
1725
In the 1999 prebudget submission called “Taxes and Health Care:
It's Critical”, we proposed an alternate budget. It would
include $26 billion in total tax relief and $19 billion in
repayment of the national debt over the next three years;
increased health transfers to the provinces by $2 billion a year;
and an immediate $1 billion reinvestment in Canada's armed
forces.
On February 2, 1999 the Ottawa Sun reported that “Sherry
Cooper, chief economist for Nesbitt Burns, said Reform's
proposals are realistic. This is feasible” she said. Cooper
said “If spending is kept in line, the government should have
enough money to fund both tax cuts and debt reduction because the
surpluses are going to be huge”.
Parents know that the best child care program is a dad and a mom
but sadly, commercial day care is the only child care option
recompensed by the Canadian tax code. In her 1998 submission to
Parliament's finance committee Heather Gore-Hickman, chartered
accountant, found that only 16% of families with kids claim the
child care expense deduction for commercial day care.
Roughly speaking, in 19% of families, both parents work full
time but they either use informal child care, work out of home,
or work flex time. So one parent is always at home. Twenty-two
per cent of families have a second part time income while
providing parent care. Over 33% of families have a parent
providing full time unpaid child care.
According to the Fraser Institute in its pamphlet “Tax Facts
Ten”, twoearner families earning $30,000 paid $3,492 in income
tax, while a one earner family paid $4,317, or 24% more in 1995.
A report showed that a family earning $60,000 paid $6,383 in
federal income tax; if a two earner, $10,300; if a one earner, a
whopping 61% more.
The tax code of this government sends the message that private
parenting has no public value and if chosen, families will be
penalized. The suggested changes to bring fairness can be made.
These policy problems are only the tip of the iceberg of an
outdated Liberal ideology.
I have already cited how the administration is incompetent and
how it hurts people and then runs from responsibility, how it
fails to fulfil the public trust; but the capper of it all is
that when serious policy problems are outlined by the opposition
parties and then constructive alternatives are presented from
this side to help Canadians, the smugness of the cabinet
continues the old style Liberal way and they assert that they
have all the answers.
The point is that the Liberals are part of a harsh culture that
hurts family life, puts unreasonable pressure on families and
poorly serves kids. Heaven help us when the next generation of
children returns the favour to our culture. Just 38% of people
voted for Liberals, and they still behave as if they had the
divine right to govern with impunity and with little
accountability.
The bill before us today is the implementation of spending
intentions. This legislation is a big fuzzy housekeeping bill
that contains a lot of feel good stuff. The Liberals have failed
to simplify the tax code. They are announcing money they have
already deleted from the taxpayers' surplus in previous budgets.
They have failed to give Canadians what they really need, which
is massive across the board tax cuts and smaller government.
I trust there will be some better economic policy thought on the
Liberal side as a result of these debates. If there is not, we
in the official opposition are ready and waiting to govern for
the 21st century.
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps we could call it 5.30 p.m. Is
that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.30 p.m., the House will
now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA FOR HEALTH AND MEDICAL PURPOSES
The House resumed from March 4 consideration of the motion and
the amendment.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
is a growing body of evidence, most of it still anecdotal, that
strongly suggests that marijuana has unique therapeutic
properties in the treatment of several life and sense threatening
diseases. For example, some people with multiple sclerosis
believe that smoking marijuana helps them to control their
spasticity. In certain instances the use of marijuana has helped
to reduce nausea and stimulate the appetite of those living with
HIV and AIDS.
Last year the board of directors of the Canadian AIDS Society
passed a position statement on the medicinal use of smokable
marijuana stating that people living with HIV-AIDS and their
physicians should have access to marijuana for medicinal purposes
in the treatment of these conditions.
1730
There are indications that smoking marijuana can likewise reduce
nausea and vomiting brought on by chemotherapy, principally among
cancer patients. This is not simply a matter of comfort, as some
cancer patients have had to cease treatment because the constant
vomiting can make it impossible to continue taking the
therapeutic drugs they need. Many chemotherapy patients complain
that other anti-nausea drugs are ineffective and in some cases
produce unwelcome side effects.
Marijuana is reputed to be helpful in the treatment of glaucoma
through the reduction of intraocular pressure caused by fluid
accumulation.
Other medical conditions or situations for which marijuana is
reputed to have some effectiveness include an anti-convulsant
action which may have an application in the treatment of
epilepsy, and an analgesic action for pain relief. Marijuana
cannot be said to cure any of these conditions but the potential
exists with rational, medically supervised use to help alleviate
pain and suffering. One recent report would term this belief
based medicine. In Canada we strive for evidence based medicine.
The therapeutic products program, the regulator in Health
Canada, has in place an expert advisory committee that since last
year has been examining a number of issues relating to the
medical uses of marijuana.
I am delighted that Canada will be among those jurisdictions to
gather evidence in a safe and controlled manner so that our body
of evidence can be evaluated along with that being done
elsewhere.
In the U.K., GW Pharmaceuticals has been granted licences by the
British Government to cultivate cannabis plants and to store and
dispense the cannabis preparations for research. Initially it
will develop standardized extracts of cannabis plants grown under
controlled conditions. Research will also be concentrated on the
best way to give the drug to patients and on which conditions it
can safely treat.
They intend to proceed to clinical trials with a smokeless whole
plant extract while also supplying marijuana to other
investigators interested in medical research and pharmaceutical
development.
Earlier this year the International Narcotics Control Board,
which is responsible for the implementation of United Nations
drug conventions, released its annual report for 1998. In the
report the board called for unbiased research into the possible
medical benefits of marijuana.
If the medical usefulness of marijuana is established, which I
believe it will be, it would remain a drug no different from any
other narcotic drugs. It would still be subject to licensing and
other control measures according to international treaties, just
like morphine and opiates.
Last month the American Institute of Medicine issued its report
entitled “Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science
Base”. It declared that the medical use of marijuana may be one
of the most effective treatments available for people with
serious diseases such as AIDS and cancer.
This study, the product of more than 18 months of research,
highlights continued concerns about marijuana but says it clearly
controls some forms of pain, was not particularly addictive, and
did not appear to be a gateway to harder drugs. The report also
states that new research on the medical uses of marijuana should
try to develop a non-smoked rapid onset delivery system to
simulate the action of smoking marijuana.
To assist desperately ill patients who may not want to wait for
a safe alternative to be developed, the report suggests doctors
be allowed to launch clinical trials of marijuana, telling each
test subject the benefits and risks of smoking it, including the
negative impact of the smoke itself.
At the present moment a licit supply of medical research quality
marijuana for clinical trials in Canada is potentially available
and obtainable from the American National Institute on Drug
Abuse. GW Pharmaceuticals may also be interested in performing
some clinical trials with its developed alternate delivery
systems outside its jurisdiction of Britain.
In Canada no scientific evidence that smoked marijuana has
medicinal benefit has been submitted to the therapeutic products
program. I believe very soon there will be a need for
researchers to come forward and present proposals to study the
benefits of the medicinal use of marijuana.
Under the Controlled Drug and Substances Act there is sufficient
latitude to distribute marijuana without having to now change the
law.
Under the CDSA the Minister of Health can enact regulations to
authorize the possession, import, export and production of
cannabis for medical purposes. Section 56 of the act states the
following:
The Minister may, on such terms and conditions as the Minister
deems necessary, exempt any person or class of persons or any
controlled substance or precursor or any class thereof from the
application of all or any of the provisions of this act or the
regulations if, in the opinion of the Minister, the exemption is
necessary for a medical or scientific purpose or is otherwise in
the public interest.
1735
Under the regulations of the CDSA, the minister also has the
authority to authorize research on controlled substances.
Together with others, specifically those in our social policy
caucus at the time, I worked on the rework of the relevant bill
in the 35th parliament. Hansard debates recorded this.
In the summer of 1997 I commissioned the Library of Parliament
to prepare a report regarding the use of the new CDSA act and
medicinal marijuana. This report was delivered to me in
September 1997, at which time I provided it to our Minister of
Justice and our Minister of Health.
I have pushed this matter very hard inside my government and
since that time with these departments. I, with others,
understand that even now there will not be overnight change; but
let us not underestimate the progress made. The answer to my
question to the Minister of Health on March 3 was a significant
embarkment on a new policy direction for Canada.
There are drugs that contain THC, the active ingredient in
cannabis, which have received therapeutic drug approval by Health
Canada. These drugs went through the drug submission process,
received a notice of compliance and then were granted drug
identification numbers. The drugs can be sold legally in Canada
pursuant to a prescription by a practitioner. Since the active
ingredient in cannabis is already available for medicinal
purposes in Canada, expanding its use may seem to be an
appropriate development once we have the supportive research in
hand.
At the present time in Canada there are two approved drugs that
contain the active ingredients derived from the marijuana plants
in pill form: Marinol and Cesamet. For many patients these
synthetic versions of marijuana's active ingredients are
expensive, unpalatable, and if they are trying to control nausea
to be able to take oral medications they are ineffective
oftentimes.
Smoking marijuana meanwhile appears to provide immediate relief
of nausea and a stimulation of the appetite, allowing people to
hold down both their pills and some food. There may be better
mediums, for example inhalers, that reduce the negative side
effects associated with smoking marijuana. These are still under
development.
Currently some people who suffer from these diseases discussed
above, for whom the legal medical options have proven ineffective
or painful, have made choices. Some have obtained marijuana
illegally in Canada and therefore risk suffering consequences
such as arrest, fines, court costs, property forfeiture,
incarceration, probation and criminal records.
Once evidence has been gathered the federal government will need
to establish quickly an approach that would provide medical
quality, licit marijuana so that people suffering from disease do
not have to take further risks with their health by buying
potentially impure, contaminated or chemically adulterated
marijuana as is the case currently in Canada.
The concept of legalizing marijuana for medical purposes has
been debated on and off in Canada for a number of years. I
stress today that it is not the so-called legalization of a
controlled substance that is the real issue. It is the legal
access through the CDSA, which could be dealt with easily. In a
recent court case in my riding, Regina v Clay and Prentice,
Ontario Court Justice John McCart stated:
Parliament may wish to take a serious look at easing the
restrictions that apply to the use of marijuana for the medical
uses as outlined above as well as for alleviating some of the
symptoms associated with multiple sclerosis, such as pain and
muscle spasm. There appears to be no merit to the wide-spread
claim that marijuana has no therapeutic value whatsoever.
It is a welcome step what we are doing. We need solid research
efforts to commence soon. We also need to help set up a system
so that those on trials are not open to criminal harassment. It
is a matter of compassion. It is not fair to these people who
have to fight both their disease and the law at the same time.
I applaud members on all sides of the House who have worked on
this matter over the years. I think it is very important to
recognize them. I also think it is important to recognize the
Minister of Health who has taken this step forward at this time.
I want to also thank my constituents and those across Canada who
have brought the poignancy and the tragedy of this issue to my
attention. I am proud to be part of our government as we move
forward on this issue.
1740
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
take part in today's debate on the use of marijuana for health
purposes.
This is a health debate, a justice debate, based on the values
of fairness, mutual aid and compassion that we all share as a
society.
Unfortunately, the motion, as amended by the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Health, no longer mentions the
legalization of marijuana, which is a matter of concern. It now
talks about the “possible legal medical use of marijuana”. In
our view, this is a step backwards since the government has
asserted many times that it was open to the idea and eager to
look into it further.
In fact, more than a year ago, my colleague from Rosemont asked
the Minister of Health to set up a parliamentary committee to
consider the issue. The minister replied that the question was
under consideration, that some people were already studying the
matter. He said, and I quote: “The issue is under consideration
by my department and by the Department of Justice. Along with my
colleague, we are reviewing all the aspects of the issue. We
hope to present our policy in the coming months”.
Thirteen months after this statement, we are still waiting for
some answers and for some concrete measures by the minister or
his colleague, the Minister of Justice, who, a year ago, had
already started to review all the aspects of this important
issue.
In our view, at the present time the government is holding
hostage thousands of people who are suffering and waiting for a
sign of hope while risking six months in jail and a $1,000 fine
in order to buy marijuana on the black market.
Currently, this debate is about medical issues. But it is also a
matter of compassion. More often than not people with HIV/AIDS
or other diseases suffer from extreme nausea and are unable to
eat. This is a problem, since some of the drugs prescribed to
them must be taken with food.
If the patient is successful in taking his medication in spite
of the nausea and lack of appetite, he might be affected by side
effects: more nausea or even total intolerance to the drug
itself.
For some, the solution to these problems has been to smoke or
inhale marijuana. It eases nausea and stimulates the appetite.
Currently these men and women must break the law to get relief.
This is intolerable in a country boasting one of the best health
care systems in the world.
Nobody doubts the therapeutic effectiveness of THC, the main
active ingredient in marijuana. As a matter of fact, for a
number of years already physicians have been prescribing Marinol
pills containing synthetic THC. This drug is available in
drugstores. However even Marinol is not as effective as inhaled
marijuana.
Many physicians are asking to be allowed to prescribe THC,
arguing they are in the best position to determine in which form
marijuana will be the best able to help their patients.
The positive effects of THC have been know for a long time, but,
strangely enough, it is only recently that medical authorities
have started to examine seriously through clinical research
these effects and potential medical applications.
Last March, the American medical institute published a report
that found, once again, that marijuana has an excellent medical
potential.
In November of 1998, the British science and technology
committee of the House of Lords took a strong stand in favour of
the legalization of marijuana for therapeutic uses. The chairman
of the committee stated “We have enough evidence to be convinced
that physicians should be allowed to prescribe marijuana to ease
the suffering of the sick or the symptoms of multiple sclerosis,
criminal code notwithstanding”.
1745
Recent research has confirmed earlier reports, including those
of the World Health Organization, which are more and more
dispelling myths about the therapeutic value of marijuana.
Since the beginning of his campaign, my colleague from Rosemont
has gathered a great deal of support, and more support keeps
coming in. The Canadian AIDS Society, the Quebec chapter of the
Canadian Hemophilia Society and the Coalition des organismes
communautaires québécois de lutte contre le sida support motion
M-381 without any reservation.
Not too long ago, the National Pensioners and Senior Citizens
Federation urged the health minister to act quickly on this
issue.
The Canadian Medical Association has been defending the
decriminalization of simple possession of marijuana since 1981
and deplores the lack of any systematic scientific research on
the issue.
Support for decriminalization of marijuana for therapeutic
purposes does not come just from the medical associations or
social groups; according to a survey carried out last month,
close to 80% of the population are in favour of this major
change.
Health Canada has had a program since 1966 whereby certain
patients may receive unauthorised drugs so that they do not have
to suffer needlessly while awaiting authorisation of a product
that could help them. Jean-Charles Parizeau and James Wakeford,
among others, have applied to obtain marijuana The government
has not, however, given any concrete response as yet.
This is a problematic situation, because a recent Ontario Court
decision on the Wakeford case almost found the Narcotics Act
unconstitutional, since it has the effect of depriving certain
individuals of the only effective treatment to alleviate their
condition. It did not do so for just one reason: there is a way
to obtain marijuana and other drugs, such as morphine and other
unauthorized drugs, under the current legislation, via the
special access program.
This means that, if the government persists in refusing to
respond to requests, or refuses access to marijuana through the
special access program, part of the Narcotics Act will become
unconstitutional, not by law but by fact.
Mr. Parizeau and Mr. Wakeford, and others in their position,
would have two choices available to them.
First, to play the good citizen, to suffer and to die in the
near future, or second to improve their condition and their
quality of life by an illegal act. This is the impossible
choice this government offers to those in needs. It is
unacceptable.
In conclusion, the government must stop holding sick people
hostage, stop waffling, stop letting the courts decide for it.
I would therefore like to propose an amendment to the amendment
of Motion M-381. If the government is sincere in its desire to
settle this important question, it will acknowledge that the
change is well-founded.
I move:
That the amendment be
amended by deleting the words “concerning the possible legal” and
substituting the following:
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak to Motion M-381 as well as to the
amendment put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Health.
First, I will take a few moments to give the history of Cannabis
sativa and to talk about the various reports and commissions on
this issue, and I will then explain why I strongly support the
motion and the amendment to legalize the use of marijuana for
health and medical purposes.
To better understand the issue, I did some research and I
consulted the Le Dain report, among others.
Cannabis sativa is cultivated or grows wild in most countries in
tropical or temperate zones, including Canada.
1750
This plant, which probably came originally from Asia, has been
cultivated for a very long time. The street language has given
marijuana different names, including pot and grass in English.
In India, medium quality marijuana is called bang and high
quality marijuana is called ganga. It is called kif in Marocco,
dagga in South Africa and ganga in Jamaica.
Cannabis also produces an amber coloured resin which, in the
almost pure state, is a drug called charas in India and hashish
in western and middle eastern countries.
As for the word marijuana, its etymology is not clear.
Some sources say that it is the contraction of two first names
that are popular in Mexico, namely Maria and Juana. Other
believe that this word comes from the Mexican word mariguano,
which means intoxicant, or the Panamanian word managuango, which
has the same meaning.
Cannabis has many uses. Its stem provides strong textile fibres
that are used in the manufacturing of wires and cables. They can
also be used to make blankets, clothes, flags and boat sails.
The seeds contain a kind of oil similar to linseed oil that is
used in the manufacturing of soap and paint. In Canada, people
used to grow cannabis to fight erosion and strong winds.
After this brief historical overview, I will know look at the
medical use of that plant.
Our first description of cannabis comes from a medical treatise
attributed to the Chinese emperor Chen-Nong, who lived around
2700 B.C. In addition, archeological discoveries at a site in
Egypt between 3,000 and 4,000 years old have revealed its use.
Herodotus, a Greek historian, mentions in his writings that
inhaling the smoke from cannabis was a funeral purification rite
of the Scythians, a people speaking Iranian and living between
the Danube and the Don starting in the 12th century B.C.
The oldest of the Veda, the sacred Hindu books, written in
Sanskrit after 1800 B.C., indicates the properties of cannabis.
Similarly, the Avesta, the holy book of the Zoroastrians, who
originated in Northern Persia, which dates from 600 B.C.,
mentions that the cannabis resin produces drunkenness.
One of the Hindu god Siva's titles is lord of the bongs and even
today, the bong plays an important role in many Hindu religious
practices, both symbolically and therapeutically.
In Europe, interest in the use of cannabis did not really
develop socially and medicinally until 1798, or after the return
of Napoleon's expeditionary forces from Egypt.
In the 19th century, western medicine paid a lot of attention to
cannabis because of the influence of two authors: Dr.
O'Shaughnessy, an English doctor who returned from India in
1843, and Moreau de Tours, a Frenchman who wrote considerably on
the medicinal use and the abuse of cannabis in 1848.
In Europe, cannabis only began to gather a following in 1844,
when the Club des Hachichins, whose members included Balzac,
Hugo, Baudelaire and Gautier, was founded in Paris.
In Canada, the French apothecary, Louis Hébert, who arrived with
Samuel de Champlain in 1606, was the first colonist to cultivate
marijuana in North America.
There have been many studies and commissions on the subject, the
most exhaustive being the 3,281-page, seven-volume
Indian Hemp Drugs Commission report, published in India in 1894.
It was followed by the Guardian committee report, named after
the mayor of New York, England's Baroness Wootton report, and
our own Le Dain commission report.
One argument used against legalizing marijuana for medical
purposes is that marijuana now exists in the form of a drug, THC
or tetrahydrocannabinol, marketed under the name Marinol.
The problem is that THC, like most drugs, is absorbed by the
gastrointestinal tract slowly and irregularly and its speed of
absorption can be affected by the stomach's contents.
In addition, THC frequently has undesirable side effects, and
patients stop taking it.
As for marijuana, which admittedly also has harmful side
effects, its rapid absorption by the pulmonary route is a real
benefit to certain patients.
1755
Despite all that medicine has done to understand the human being
and try to stave off death as long as possible, it seems that
compassion for human suffering sometimes falls short.
There is still a wide range of treatments, medical cocktails,
for the seriously ill, of course. But what good are they if
ingesting them makes people sicker.
Earlier, its benefits for those with MS, glaucoma, epilepsy or
cancer were mentioned. There is also the wasting, or loss of
muscle and fatty tissue seen in those with HIV and AIDS.
In this particular situation, inhaling marijuana not only brings
speedy and significant relief, but also helps patients' physical
and psychological recovery.
Demonstrating compassion towards the sick is also the role of
politicians and that is why I support any legislative measure to
provide controlled access to the therapeutic and medical use of
marijuana.
The Deputy Speaker: Before continuing, I want to point out that
debate will now be on the amendment to the amendment moved by
the hon. member for Drummond.
[English]
Ms. Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. It seems to me that the subamendment changes the intent
of the motion and the amendment and I question whether it is in
order.
The Deputy Speaker: In the opinion of the Chair, the
subamendment does fall within the amendment that was proposed.
It simply clarifies the amendment. If the clarification is such
that the House finds it objectionable, the House can reject it
when voting on the subamendment. However, I think the
subamendment appears to be in order and I have accordingly put it
to the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
congratulate the hon. member for Rosemont for this motion on the
medical use of marijuana. This debate needs to be held.
[English]
In my view, cannabis for palliation has a place. There are
instances of terminal cancer, AIDS, chemotherapy wasting,
epilepsy and glaucoma where it looks like cannabis has a positive
effect. I especially believe that it has a place when there is
no other product that works.
We are debating the medical use of marijuana only. I think that
good medical practice would say yes to the medical use of
marijuana if there were no other choice. As an example, heroin,
which is considered to be an illicit drug in Canada, is available
to medical practitioners for this very purpose and if heroin,
which is a potent illicit drug, is available, the argument would
say, why not the medical use of cannabis.
There are some difficulties with the medical use of marijuana.
This is not a straightforward issue. Smoked marijuana is impure.
In fact it is a chemical cocktail.
1800
Many of the medications we use for palliation are in fact a
cocktail, but we have some choice over their constituents. The
impurity of THC and the other constituents in marijuana is a
problem. THC or cannibinoids are but one component of smoked
pot, which is the common expression for this medication.
There are some new studies that state that cannabis has some
positive medical effects. The recent one which I would like to
quote from today is from the Institute of Medicine in the U.S.
This was reported recently in The Washington Post. The
Institute of Medicine is an independent advisory body and the
study did take some time. It was quite eagerly looked upon for
some help in this debate, a debate that is complex.
The basic conclusions of this study were that marijuana smoke
can have an important effect on certain disease states. The
study states “While we see a future in the development of
cannibinoid drugs, we see little future in smoked marijuana as a
medicine”. There we have the division. The cannibinoids in
marijuana have a fairly positive future. This study suggested
that smoked marijuana might well not be the way to go.
As the study went on, there were very specific issues raised.
Pain relief is probably the biggest commercial marketplace for
cannibinoids. It went on to say that for nausea and vomiting
caused by chemotherapy, cannibinoids are mildly effective but
other preparations may be just as good. For the other things,
glaucoma, migraines, Parkinson's, Huntington's disease and
whatnot, not nearly as impressive results were found.
If I can summarize this report, I would say that cannibinoids or
THC in marijuana do have some positive benefits, especially in
the treatment of pain. That would suggest to me for pain relief
in a palliative sense for serious illnesses such as cancer and
possibly AIDS this may well be a useful product.
One of the other big difficulties with the medical use of
marijuana is the likelihood that recreational use will become
more difficult to control. That is not the case with other
products, like heroin, which are chemically produced.
Marijuana of course can be grown and is fairly easily grown. It
can be grown in a house under certain circumstances. It can
certainly be grown in the summer in Canada. That makes the
control of recreational use more difficult. There are some who
say that recreational use should be allowed unfettered. That is
not something I agree with at all.
I would like to suggest some potential solutions for the
problems we have. On the one hand, it looks like cannibinoids
may well be useful for palliation. On the other hand, there are
some difficulties with control of the recreational use.
The potential solutions would be, number one, to isolate these
cannibinoids for specific use. There is some new research being
done along those lines.
We could also find alternate routes of administration. As my
hon. colleague across the way mentioned, the oral route is not
the best route for this particular preparation. Gastric
absorption is not perfect and patients have told me that. There
are three other potential routes.
There is a new waxy capsule that has been developed. This is
from the University of Mississippi in the United States. Initial
research there looks very positive. It is absorbed quite
rapidly. It is not the ideal way to administer for many people,
but for individuals in these tough circumstances I think that
might be a fair alternate.
An oral or nasal spray of the very specific THC might also be
possible. It has been suggested and in fact has been used in
research.
1805
A patch which is another mechanism of administration has also
been looked at.
This would not be a controversy at all if it were not for the
recreational use of marijuana. This would have been done long
ago under an enlightened medical system.
There are a host of individuals who use the medical use of
marijuana as a gateway toward a larger use. As a practitioner, I
had the opportunity to treat patients for drug problems. I do
not go down the road of softening marijuana use for recreational
purposes for one second. The reasons are legion but I do not
have too much time so I will be narrow in this focus.
Some 5% to 15% of the youth using cannabis become habituated. I
did not use the word addicted because that is not the appropriate
word for marijuana. Habituated is a more appropriate word. There
are those who say not to bother with those small numbers because
many, many kids who use this preparation go on to become
perfectly healthy. I grant that as absolutely true.
I would ask those individuals to attend in any city in the
country a drug rehab facility. Go to a NarAnon meeting and
listen to the youth and sometimes the adults who talk about the
problems they have had with marijuana misuse. Ask about the
school attendance from youth who have been habituated to
marijuana. Ask about the personality changes these youth
undergo. Ask about the problems they have undergone with the
legal system, not just because of their marijuana use but because
of fencing and the other things that go along with the drug
subculture.
The medical use of the specific components of marijuana have
some merit. I am quite cautious about going down the road of
recreational use and in fact am vigorously opposed in that
regard. Purifying and looking at THC in its purest form is ideal.
Smoked marijuana for those who have absolutely no other choice
or those at the end of life could be approached.
This debate is one that is timely.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the member for Rosemont for bringing forward private
member's Motion No. M-381, to allow the legal medical use of
marijuana.
This motion is a very good demonstration of what we can do as
parliamentarians to examine an issue. In some ways this
institution of the House of Commons is sort of far behind public
opinion, even where the medical community is. Certainly people
who are suffering from pain and diseases like AIDS or cancer are
very eager to see this motion pass.
I congratulate the member for his diligence in bringing this
issue to the House and seeking out support from other members. I
think that support is now quite strong. Many of my NDP
colleagues are very supportive of this motion. Our health
critic, the member for Winnipeg North Centre, spoke on March 4
and outlined very well the medical evidence that already exists
to demonstrate that this motion should be approved in full rather
than with the amendment put forward by the government.
There is lots of evidence before us to show that the medical
profession has made it quite clear there are very good grounds
and information to show the medical use of marijuana is actually
something beneficial. It helps people who are suffering from
HIV, AIDS, cancer, MS and other ailments. We have received
communications from groups such as the Canadian AIDS Society. It
has very strongly outlined and advocated its support for this
motion.
1810
There is no question there have been numerous studies. Also,
very brave individuals in our society have taken on the justice
system, sometimes almost alone, to challenge the archaic laws
when it comes to the medical use of marijuana. People like Jim
Wakeford, Terry Parker and others with a lot of expense and
anxiety have had to take on the system to get this issue before
the courts and to challenge the sanity and the rationale of why
this law still exists.
Numerous polls show us that even the Canadian public believes
very strongly that the medical use of marijuana is something that
should be sanctioned and supported. It creates a very strange
situation that we have public opinion, and we even have judges
making court rulings, we have health professionals, and the
medical profession all telling us that this is the right thing to
do. The lack of political will and commitment to follow through
is now the greatest obstacle we face.
I along with other members were very happy to see the Minister
of Health make his announcement on March 3 that Health Canada
will study and develop a plan around clinical trials for the
medical use of marijuana. I do think we have to question whether
or not this is simply a stalling tactic that is going to cause
people more harm and more suffering as they wait for more studies
to be done.
We have to be very clear that the Minister of Health has the
discretion and the power today. He had it last year and the year
before that but he has it today to approve applications on
compassionate grounds for the medical use of marijuana. There are
applications before him.
The Vancouver Compassion Club is an organization in my riding
with a membership of about 700 individuals. Marijuana is actually
dispensed for medical purposes. They have a lawyer who is
signing people up to apply for an application for exemption. They
are even prepared to go to a legal challenge based on their
constitutional rights to have this medical exemption take place
while the trials are taking place.
I encourage members of the House, particularly government
members, to continue to put pressure on the health minister. It
is a useful and good thing to have these clinical trials go ahead
as there are things that we need to learn. However, we have
enough information now to ask the minister to go ahead with the
exemption so that people can get relief, help and support now
without having to become criminals if they seek help through
places like the Vancouver Compassion Club or other organizations.
Why are we afraid of taking immediate action on this? Why is
the government afraid of doing that? It is partly wound up in
the morals we have. We heard from the health critic of the
Reform Party. It is all wound up with people's concerns about
recreational use. This is part of a debate which I think is very
necessary on Canada's drug laws. We need to have progressive
reform in our drug laws.
I have been working on an issue that affects my riding very
much. It deals with injection drug users, heroin addicts who are
literally dying on the streets. I have been advocating for
heroin prescription trials as a way of medicalizing support and
help to actually prevent people from dying, to get support for
those people who now are completely outside of the system.
The biggest barrier is not from the medical community, nor even
from the public. It is from elected representatives,
particularly the government representatives who are afraid to
take this issue on. It deals with the taboos around a drug
policy.
I say very strongly that this is a place to begin in terms of
drug reform policy. There is strong public support but we do have
to go further.
1815
We can make a very rational, articulate and well reasoned case
why the motion should be approved. The Minister of Health should
be approving applications today for exemptions so that Canadians
do not suffer any longer, so that they can get the relief they
need without having to go to all kinds of difficult means and
being made to feel like they are being marginalized and
stigmatized by having to get medical marijuana illegally. That
is a shame. It is something that does not need to exist if we
had the political will and the leadership.
I thank members of the House who support the motion. We must
continue this work. There is a lot at stake here. This is an
important debate. We must put pressure on the health minister to
provide those exemptions.
We must make it very clear that we do not want to wait another
two or three years for the trials to be conducted. We do not
want to wait for another study or another plan. We want help and
relief to be provided now while those trials are going on. That
is what we must urge the government to do in the interest of
compassion and of providing people with real help and assistance.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to speak today on an issue that is important for the well-being
of some sick people.
Legalizing the use of marijuana for health purposes is an urgent
necessity for many sick persons, and the government's reluctance
to set up an concrete plan of action is unacceptable to the many
sick people who must act like criminals, even though they are
using a drug prescribed by a doctor.
This debate is a first in the history of the House of Commons.
At last, thanks to the motion of my colleague, the hon. member
for Rosemont, we have a unique opportunity, as representatives
of our fellow citizens, to discuss the legalization of marijuana
for medical purposes.
But the issue is not a new one. In this regard, we lag far
behind our civil society. We want to catch up by making sure
that Motion M-381 gets the support of a majority of members from
all sides, when we vote on it here, in this House.
Let me explain why this is such an important issue. First, the
Ontario court has already found part of the Narcotic Control Act
to be unconstitutional, including the provisions on the use of
marijuana for health purposes.
As legislators, we have a duty to make a decision before the
current legal vacuum forces judges to make that decision for us.
Judges are not elected and should not be forced to make the
final decision in a debate involving all of society because we
hesitate to play our role as legislators.
This is also a matter of compassion towards those who suffer
from nausea, vomiting and other symptoms that often accompany
chronic illnesses or are side effects of their treatments.
Thousands of patients affected by cancer, AIDS, multiple
sclerosis, epilepsy and other illnesses reported considerable
relief from smoking marijuana.
The effects are so positive that many patients and their
families are ready to risk jail sentences to buy their drug on
the black market.
It is always shocking, especially for parents, to see relatives
suffering when there is no efficient drug to alleviate pain. For
all those who suffer, it is unacceptable that someone having to
live with a chronic disease should risk six months in jail and a
$1,000 fine for using a drug recommended by a doctor. In several
cases, marijuana is the only drug that can effectively reduce
some symptoms associated with an illness.
Above all, it is unacceptable to make a criminal out of a person
who uses for medical purposes a product whose therapeutic
virtues are well established.
In fact, practitioners have been prescribing Marinol pills for
years. This drug is known to contain tetrahydrocannabinol, or
THC—that is a lot simpler to pronounce—which is the main active
ingredient of marijuana.
Indeed, no one will deny the therapeutic value of THC, which is
prescribed to relieve terminally ill patients from nausea and to
stimulate their appetite.
1820
However, this synthetic pill is not a valid alternative to
inhaled THC. According to the famous American medical magazine,
the New England Journal of Medicine of January 30, 1997,
inhalation is the only way to increase rapidly the level of THC
in blood. Hence, inhalation of THC considerably improves the
therapeutic efficiency of this substance.
Besides, numerous patients who would use marijuana for
therapeutic purposes already have to swallow every day an
astronomical number of pills. This can cause vomiting and
patients are therefore forced to swallow again the medication
they have rejected. This is totally inhuman. It is obvious that
in such cases, it would be better to administer THC by the
pulmonary route rather than by the digestive route.
I will now answer a question that many people ask about
therapeutic inhalation of marijuana. Are the side effects of
this practice acceptable?
The inhalation of marijuana has well-known side effects. One only
has to think about the damages caused to the lungs by inhalation
of noxious smoke or about certain psychotic effects. We must
understand that many medications, and not only marijuana, have
side effects.
Think, for example, of the undesirable and serious side effects
of chemotherapy or AZT treatments.
Let us consider, as well, the precautions that must be taken by
those who use, for therapeutic purposes, by-products of morphine
and cocaine. Even in the case of a simple Sudafed tablet, it is
recommended not to drive a motor vehicle because of side
effects. Indeed, this restriction would probably also apply to
those who take marijuana for therapeutic purposes.
We must bear in mind, however, that the side effects of
marijuana are considered less harmful than those of at least two
products that are widely used. As a matter of fact, a report
produced by a group of French and foreign experts, and entitled
Problèmes posés par la dangerosité des drogues, came to the
conclusion that the use of marijuana is less hazardous than the
use of alcohol or tobacco.
These conclusions are consistent with the results of a similar
study conducted on behalf of the UN World Health Organization.
The side effects of a drug cannot be dissociated from its
benefits.
For many patients the various benefits of marijuana far outweigh
the side effects known to be less serious than those of alcohol
or nicotine. It is in this context that the British Medical
Association publicly asked the police and the courts to tolerate
the therapeutic use of marijuana.
In its report, the association says that some patients are
condemned to using an illegal drug to relieve symptoms no
existing medication can control and that there is compelling
evidence that marijuana can help in some circumstances.
The British government responded to this request by allowing a
pharmaceutical company to grow and supply cannabis for medical
research, which led the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great
Britain to say she is confident prescriptions will be allowed
within the next three years.
In the U.S., 28 states already have laws on the therapeutic use
of marijuana. During the 1998 elections, six other states held a
referendum on the issue. In all six cases, measures favouring
the therapeutic use of marijuana got the majority of the popular
vote.
In Canada and Quebec, physicians are mobilizing to make the
medical benefits of marijuana better known.
They point out that marijuana relieves nausea and stimulates the
appetite, which can help save the life of patients suffering
from anemia because of chemotherapy or AIDS treatments.
A cross-Canada poll has shown wide support, 83%, for the
legalization of marijuana for therapeutic uses. The Globe and
Mail commissioned that Angus Reid poll on November 4, 1997.
1825
On the political front, the Progressive Conservative Party, the
NDP and the Bloc are in favour of legalization of marijuana for
therapeutic uses, and individual members of the Liberal Party
and the Reform Party are also in favour.
As far as the federal government is concerned, the health and
justice ministers stated in the House in March 1998 that this
important issue was under consideration in their departments.
There is no place here for petty politics, for this question is
too important for thousands of patients.
Nine months have gone by, and the federal government has still
not come up with a policy, and the ministers have not yet given
a date for one. This is cause for concern, because people are
suffering. I urge all legislators to support this motion so that
people affected by diseases like AIDS or multiple sclerosis who
do not have any suitable drug available to them can at last be
relieved of their pain.
I ask for a unanimous vote on this motion.
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I
want to commend the hon. member for Rosemont for putting this
private members' motion before the House and for the key role he
has played these last few weeks in urging the federal government
to take concrete measures to support the use of marijuana for
therapeutic and medical purposes.
I also want to congratulate all those who, in their own way,
have constantly put pressure on the elected representatives so
that this debate could be held and concrete measures could be
implemented to help the people who need to use marijuana for
medical purposes, who need to find some relief from pain and
suffering or to deal with the symptoms of chronic or terminal
illnesses.
Of course, I am glad to join all those who have worked together
to urge the federal government to have the political courage and
the leadership to recognize the medicinal value of marijuana by
immediately implementing measures to legalize the use of
marijuana for therapeutic purposes.
As my colleague from New Brunswick Southwest said, this issue
must be addressed from a compassionate point of view. We must
keep an open mind and show compassion throughout this debate.
We have to keep in mind that for the sick who need marijuana for
therapeutic purposes, every day they suffer is one day too many.
Do not think I am talking in abstractions. I know what I am
talking about, because my mother died of cancer after many long
years of suffering.
I will never forget how useless I felt as I watched her suffer
and I wish I had known the therapeutic effects of marijuana at
the time.
However, it was unfortunately only a few years later that I
learned about its therapeutic use, and I support the actions of
those fighting for its medical use.
I will tell you that this decision was very easy when I learned
that the leaders of this campaign were those who were themselves
sick and had to obtain marijuana illegally at the risk of being
arrested.
I think it is totally unacceptable that someone who is
chronically ill or in the final stages of AIDS is being
penalized for medical treatment that many doctors would
recommend if they could.
Experiments have shown—and a significant number of health care
professionals have recognized it publicly—that the use of
cannabis has beneficial effects in the case of at least four
serious diseases. First, by lowering eye pressure, it controls
glaucoma. Second, it reduces spasms in victims of MS. Third,
it reduces nausea and suffering of those with cancer. Finally,
it helps those with AIDS fight depression and regain the
appetite they need to survive.
It is also felt that marijuana can help those suffering from
certain diseases such as migraines and emphysema.
The other factor working considerably in favour of the use of
marijuana for medical purposes is that it produces no side
effects, as too often occur with other treatments and which can
be of such intensity as to discourage those who are ill from
taking their medication, despite their suffering.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but
the time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired. The order is dropped to the bottom of
the order of precedence on the order paper.
1830
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for unanimous
consent of the House in order for the hon. member for Shefford
to finish her speech.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous
consent of the House to continue?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Shefford will have six
minutes to complete her speech the next time the motion is
debated in the House.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise on behalf of my
colleagues in the Marine Workers Federation and other
organizations on the west coast, on central inland waters and on
the east coast. The reason I am rising is because of a very
fundamental and important issue to my colleagues on the east
coast, specifically in Atlantic Canada in my home town of
Halifax.
What this country does not have, and I will repeat it throughout
my four minute presentation, is an industrial strategy for a
shipbuilding policy. We just do not have one. Italy has one.
France has one. Britain has one. Spain has one. Korea has one.
China has one. The United States has one. We do not, and we are
a mariner nation.
I asked a question of the Minister of Industry in the House. He
has been in that portfolio for six years. I asked him whether he
would at least meet with these people, the unions and the
workers, to discuss their concerns. His answer was no.
For six years Les Holloway, head of Marine Workers Federation in
Atlantic Canada, has been asking to meet with the minister, and
the minister's answer is no.
My question is quite clear. I want the parliamentary secretary,
or whoever will respond for the government, to tell me why the
government is refusing to meet with these workers.
Government members say that they have open, transparent
policies, that they want to be open to Canadians. However, in an
era of solidarity, in an era of co-operation which I have heard
the government constantly preach about for the last six years, it
is unbelievable that it would act in the way that it does.
Mr. Buzz Hargrove, head of CAW, is aligned with the Marine
Workers Federation as is Mr. Irving who represents one of the
largest corporations on the planet, a billionaire. An empire
builder, Mr. Irving, and a labour activist, Mr. Hargrove, two
people from the opposite ends of the political spectrum, are
singing out of the same hymn book. They are both saying that the
country needs an industrial policy for shipbuilding.
Why is the government not grabbing the opportunity in
co-operation, in transparency, in openness and in fairness? It
could put these two people in a room with the government industry
officials and come up with a policy that will benefit thousands
of Canadians in hundreds of communities?
Why is the government so intransigent and not willing to help
Marystown Shipyard in Newfoundland; Saint John, New Brunswick;
Halifax, Nova Scotia; the Pictou yards; Vancouver; the Great
Lakes; and ports in Quebec? It is probably because it is a
central based government and the extremes of Canada outside this
place mean absolutely nothing to it.
If the government can be very proactive when it comes to the
high tech and the aerospace industries and give them hundreds of
millions of dollars, all I am saying is why can it not come up
with an industrial policy for shipbuilding. Why will the
minister not meet with the workers to come up with a decent
proposal?
1835
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to answer the
question of the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit
Valley—Eastern Shore. He has given me the opportunity to speak
on the subject of shipbuilding. I am sorry he did not mention
the shipbuilding in my area.
Let me first say that the industry minister and I met with the
representatives of the shipbuilding industry on March 25. On
that day we had a very frank discussion with the president of the
Shipbuilding Association of Canada and presidents or
vice-presidents of most of Canada's shipbuilding companies. I
should also remind the member that I met with the shipbuilding
industry and the unions previous to that in the fall of 1998.
During the meeting on March 25 we discussed the generous package
of measures the federal government currently maintains to support
shipbuilding. May I make perfectly clear some of these measures:
a 33.3% accelerated capital cost allowance for Canadian
shipbuilding, a 25% duty on most non-NAFTA ship imports, domestic
procurement on a competitive basis for all government
shipbuilding and ship repairs, a favourable research and tax
credit system, and Export Development Corporation financing for
commercially viable transactions. In 1998 we extended that from
8 years to 12 years in discussions with the shipbuilding
industry.
We also explained that Industry Canada had the enabling
technologies element of Technology Partnerships Canada. I must
remind the member that shipbuilding programs lie with the
departments of foreign affairs and international trade and that
is why we coordinate them on a sector by sector basis. These
representatives have met with EDC and have made these
improvements.
In summary, substantial support has been provided to the
shipbuilding industry in the past and we will continue to
support—
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid the hon. member has run
out of time.
[Translation]
SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my speech will surely enable the parliamentary secretary to
continue to speak, because I too wish to address shipbuilding.
On March 5, I asked a question of the Minister of Finance, but
it was the Minister of Industry who replied. The Minister of
Finance, having had interests in shipping, does not wish to
answer questions. Even if his interests are held in trust, he
does not wish to answer questions.
My question was on taxation, and went as follows:
Can the Minister of Finance tell us why he does not want to do
for the shipbuilding industry what he did for the film and
television production industry, that is to harmonize federal
taxation with measures introduced by the Government of Quebec?
These measures include a tax credit for the shipbuilding
industry. This program has been in place for two years. The
federal tax almost wipes out the benefits provided to
shipbuilding companies through the provincial tax credit.
I am glad the parliamentary secretary is here—I met him last
summer when I visited the Port Weller shipyard, in Ste.
Catharines—because he knows the shipbuilding industry.
Why can he not convince his minister or the Minister of Finance
to add tax measures? We are not asking for subsidies. We are
asking for tax measures and additional tax deductions, as asked
by the Canadian shipbuilding association, the employers, with
the support of unions, and the various stakeholders in the
industry.
When the shipbuilding industry is not doing well—it is currently
operating at 40% of its capacity—it means that millions of
dollars are not invested in the regions and this has a very
significant impact, particularly in the maritimes because, as we
know, that region is affected by seasonal unemployment.
1840
The argument is just as valid for any region in Canada with a
shipyard, like the one in my riding of
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.
There was a time when people would have pointed out that the
question was coming from a Bloc Quebecois member. I wanted to
change that perception by touring all Canada's shipyards, with
the exception of Port Weller, which I visited at the same time
as the parliamentary secretary. He was kind enough to be there.
However, we realize we are miles apart on design and
productivity, as people realize that the pay and the
productivity in Canada's shipyards are better than in other
countries.
But, as the NDP member has just said, unlike certain European
and Asian countries that subsidize their shipbuilding, we do
not. Some countries, such as the United States, adopt
protectionist measures for shipbuilding, but we do not.
Canada is in the worst of all possible situations: we do
neither, and the world is passing us by.
[English]
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from Lévis
for giving me this opportunity to speak. As he mentioned we
visited the Port Weller dry docks, and I thank him for that.
The hon. member is well aware of the generous package. People
need to understand that there is a very generous package in the
shipbuilding industry, especially the accelerated capital cost
allowance. That is a very quick writeoff.
I keep repeating that the following items are in place: duty on
ship imports, domestic procurement for all government
shipbuilding and ship repairs, Export Development Corporation
financing, and a very favourable research and development tax
credit.
Also the federal government participated in an industry led
rationalization process that culminated in a more streamlined and
viable industry. The federal government contributed $200 million
between 1986 and 1993.
Let me talk about shipbuilding in Quebec. The federal
government invested $1.6 billion in Davie Industries during the
period from 1983 to 1996 in the form of contracts, contributions
and loan guarantees. Moreover, commercial arrangements for EDC
are currently moving forward to provide additional support to
this company through a loan guarantee on the Spirit of
Columbus.
As the member acknowledged we have an overcapacity of
shipbuilding, in fact 40%. The OECD workshop on shipbuilding
policies reported that there would be 40% world overcapacity by
the year 2005.
Canada is poised to be a leader in a global knowledge based
economy for the 21st century. While focus is based on these
knowledge intensive sectors where we are strong, where the
opportunity for growth and leadership is highest and where the
opportunities for young Canadians are greatest, the government
has not and will not abandon an important sector like
shipbuilding. In fact the EDC—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver East.
JUSTICE
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
every day people in my riding of Vancouver East come to me with
their hopes and their concerns for their families and their
community. Lately the concerns that I hear very often centre on
the issue of safety. People are concerned for their own personal
safety. They are concerned about keeping their children out of
harm's way and they are concerned that their neighbourhoods are
becoming less secure.
On two recent occasions in the House of Commons I raised the
issue of safety and asked the government to respond. On February
16, I asked the government what it would do to support B.C.'s
request to keep people safe in their homes as there is a huge
concern about home invasions. I also called on the government to
support the initiative of the Vancouver Safety Coalition for a
community based crime prevention program funded under the
national crime prevention strategy. Unfortunately the response
from the government has been very inadequate.
As I pointed out in the House on March 2, in order to be
effective the recently announced $5 million revitalization
program for the downtown east side must be directed toward
programs and social supports that will benefit residents and
improve safety. So far we have been told that the funds will be
used to open an office to study ways to bring people together.
1845
Instead of providing jobs for social facilitators we need to
ensure that these funds are used to help stabilize our
communities. We need to improve social conditions. We need to
improve housing and addiction treatment programs. These are the
types of programs that will make our neighbours and our
neighbourhoods safe.
Committing to a sane approach to the drug crisis is also a
crucial step in securing safe communities. We know that drug
treatment programs are capable of reducing crimes by 80%.
Research shows that for every dollar we spend on drug treatment
services $7 can be saved in medical, social and criminal
enforcement costs. Reducing the harm of obtaining illicit drugs
on the street is critical to saving lives and improving safety
for all of us.
Toward that goal I have worked for accessible detox and
treatment services, better housing conditions, a safe resource
centre for drug users so they can get away from the desperate
life on the street, and for clinical trials for a national heroin
maintenance program modelled on successful programs in Europe.
At the same time I have called on the government to show
leadership in providing adequate funding for the establishment of
community policing and neighbourhood safety.
The federal government must have the courage to support a
comprehensive strategy for increasing community security that
includes commitments to social supports and community policing.
The people of Vancouver East are demanding some assurance that
safe and healthy communities are achievable goals, not just catch
phrases of a political public relations campaign.
Keeping our families and our neighbourhoods safe is something
that concerns us all. That is why I will continue to fight for
the resources and the commitment necessary to address this
important issue.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
Vancouver East for her efforts and for her continued work in this
area. It is very important that we continue to provide
information to the minister and the department, especially the
work done by the member for Vancouver East.
The Minister of Justice wants the member to know that her
message has been heard and is being reviewed by herself and by
the department. The minister has worked with various groups
across the country to understand better and to be able to
continue to work with the member opposite and all members of this
House.
I thank the member for her work. As the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Industry I join her in her efforts and I will
continue to work on her behalf.
FIREARMS REGISTRY
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on Wednesday, March 17 I asked the Minister of Justice
an important question which she failed to answer, so I will ask
her again. How would the justice minister like it if her face
showed up on someone else's firearms licence?
That is exactly what happened to Mr. Robert Soltis of
Abbotsford, B.C. He received his firearms licence from the
Canadian firearms registry and it had someone else's picture on
it. He has no idea whose licence his picture ended up on.
When I asked the minister about the serious breach of Mr.
Soltis' privacy, the minister responded “Our firearms registry
system is working quite well, thank you very much”. She went on
to brag about all of the paperwork the CFC has processed. She
was not bragging about the lives saved or how much public safety
has been improved, but about the paper shuffled by her
bureaucrats. She said that they have processed 40,000
applications for licences and registrations, issued over 17,000
registration certificate numbers and over 12,000 photo ID
licences.
If I had the chance to ask another question that day I would
have asked how many of the 12,000 licences issued had the right
pictures on them.
Mr. Soltis wrote:
The person with my photograph on his card commits a heinous
crime. The (firearms licence) as a primary piece of
identification is found on the scene or the (firearms licence)
data bank is accessed. Either way my photograph will be on law
enforcement circulars, in newspapers and on television as the
person wanted for committing the crime.
Imagine an officer attending a domestic dispute. He or she
accesses the firearms registry through the computer board in the
patrol car and it shows John Doe as associated to that address
and he has certain firearms registered to him. But, instead of a
photograph of John Doe coming up on a computer screen, it is my
photograph. The officer approaches the house and encounters John
Doe on the street. Not associating him to the photograph, the
officer would not recognize him as a possible threat. I need not
explain the possible disastrous consequences of this scenario.
1850
Since Mr. Soltis has informed me of this blunder by the
Department of Justice other law-abiding individuals have
complained to me.
Mr. William Dennis Moss of Hawkestone, Ontario never applied for
a firearms licence but received a firearms possession and
acquisition licence that belongs to Mr. William Arthur Moss. In
his letter he asks:
I feel my privacy and security have been invaded. The person
pictured would, I am sure, feel the same. Who is this other
William Moss who is waiting for his certificate? If he gets into
trouble, the government has MY address. Would you like to be in
this position?
Mr. Moss returned his bogus licence to the Ontario Provincial
Police and was told about a number of similar mistakes that have
been reported to them.
This is not a frivolous complaint. A firearms licence is a
primary piece of identification. Have members every heard of a
passport, or a social insurance card, or a health card, or a
driver's licence being issued with someone else's picture on it,
or being sent to the wrong person at the wrong address? Just
think of the possible abuses that could occur. Yet the minister
seems unconcerned or unaware of the consequences that these
colossal errors made by her department could have.
Individuals who receive faulty licences will be stopped by the
police. If they are in the possession of a firearm, the accuracy
of their government issued licence is the only thing that will
keep them out of jail. If even one law-abiding firearm owner is
harassed by the police because of bureaucratic incompetence it
will be inexcusable.
The key question remains. How many other mistakes like these
have been made by the Department of Justice? Do we have to wait
until each and every individual holder of the licence complains
about the breach of privacy? How does the minister propose to
find all the mistakes that have been made by her department?
Will she stop—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but the hon. member's
time has expired.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the
question of the member for Yorkton—Melville. It was an isolated
case of issuing a firearms licence with the wrong photograph.
Here are the facts.
An individual in British Columbia applied in November 1998 under
the previous legislation for a firearms acquisition certificate,
an FAC. Since the licence was issued after December 1, the date
the new law took effect, he received a new possession and
acquisition licence.
The licence was processed under the procedures of the previous
legislation which relied on local police personnel to handle the
photograph and paperwork. This is a responsibility they no
longer need to worry about under the new system, which I might
add is saving police forces considerable sums of money which they
may redirect to other important local policing priorities.
Many firearms owners waited until the last days of the old law
to apply. We have so far handled over 23,000 of these cases
under the old system. It is not clear where the mistake
happened, whether it was at the local police station where it
handled a flurry of last minute applications or whether it was
when the photograph was scanned.
What is clear is that under the new law and its procedures this
would not have happened. Under the new system firearms owners do
not visit the police station, but rather fill out the form at
home. It includes all relevant information, including a photo of
themselves. I can assure the member that the Canadian Firearms
Centre central processing site has taken precautions to ensure
that this type of switch will not happen under the new system.
I must say that we are pleased with the way this new system is
working. We are indeed very pleased with the emerging proof that
it already has made a difference in public safety.
I can also tell the House that 159 new licence applications in
the first four months of the program, between December 1, 1998
and April 1, 1999, were refused, mainly due to public safety
concerns, and 129 licences were revoked.
There will be many examples of enhanced public safety in the
months to come. I hope that the member understands.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now
deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.54 p.m.)