Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to address Bill C-18 which prior to prorogation was referred to as Bill C-95. It has been is brought back substantially in the same form, in the same place, in the same position as it was before. I do not know why we prorogued. The whole thing was a farce.
This is a housekeeping bill that we will support because it amalgamates basically two departments, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and what was formerly called the Department of National Health and Welfare. Now the government wants to call it the Department of Health.
Since this bill touches on the new Department of Health I would like to submit for consideration some comments and recommendations respecting the health of this nation, the health of the government and what the government could do to improve health care for Canadians. I am concerned that the new minister for health, like the previous minister, is not in control, that he will not take responsibility for the department and that he is letting the bureaucrats set the agenda for him.
More people are concerned about long line-ups in hospitals and getting care and attention, yet this minister makes a big to-do about attending wine and cheese parties and the possibility of banning the importation of unpasteurized cheese.
This is foolish. The bureaucracy has come up with something that is scientific somewhere, unbeknown to us in opposition. We do not know where they are going and what they are trying to do. If this was the case there would be a lot of problems in Europe, would there not? For more than 500 years Europeans have been eating unpasteurized cheese and nobody is dying. Are Canadians dying? Where are the facts? What kind of game is the Minister of Health trying to play?
(1545)
This is the issue of the day versus cigarettes and some of the petitions presented today about alcohol and breast cancer. These are the important things, not unpasteurized cheese. Tainted blood; I will return to the Krever inquiry shortly.
When it comes to the health and well-being of Canadians, I believe the government is being hypocritical and duplicitous in its approach. Government members talk about the five principles of health care and how they will protect them. They think they are the only ones who can protect them. Who will pay for it? Reformers have made recommendations for health care. All the Liberals do is scoff and laugh at them: ``slash and burn''.
I have accused the government of hypocrisy and duplicity. Let me try to prove that with facts and evidence. I will compare one aspect of the Liberal budget with what we had in our zero in three budget.
On government spending and non-social spending we, along with the government, would probably have cut, as the government has, about $10 billion. On social spending, the one area of established programs financing which refers to health care and education, and the Canada assistance plan, which is welfare, the total expenditure by the government in 1994-95 was $17 billion. If we compare that with the cuts which we would have made to health care, education and welfare, the combined total in our budget was $3.5 billion. The federal government cut $6.6 billion in these areas, $3.1 billion more.
Who is guilty of slash and burn? Who is giving less money to those programs which are most important to the Canadian public? Health care and education are the key foundations to any structure, especially the social structure in Canada.
When I went door to door I said we have to cut spending everywhere else to preserve the amount of funding we have for health care and education. Even in caucus many of us argued there should not be any cuts in those areas. The counter argument was to show the Canadian public the effects of the debt and the high interest costs to service the debt, how these are actually suffocating and restricting the amount of money for all programs and therefore the cuts also must touch on health care and education.
We asked those two institutions to look at some areas which could be rationalized to eliminate waste in spending. That is not something which is preferred, and yet the government has made large cuts. That is duplicity.
The government had the hypocrisy to say that it would protect health care for Canadians. It promised it would ensure portability. It argued the Reform Party had a two-tier system.
The funding for health care by the federal government, when it was first instituted, was to be maintained at the 50 per cent level. That has been reduced to 27 per cent. Now the government is saying it will guarantee stable funding two or three years from now. It is guaranteeing that $11 billion will go to the provinces. What security does the Canadian public have that the federal government will stick to that solution?
I have a suggestion for the federal government to consider in terms of health care. We have something more. We like to highlight an alternative. This is a health care bill, after all. The alternative we are suggesting is medicare plus. We are talking about other options and improvements for the system which the federal government is too afraid to approach. It needs input. It needs debate. It is not the final Reform Party platform. It is not the final
Reform Party position. However, it should not be rejected out of hand, like the Liberals are doing, by labelling it a two-tier system.
The objectives we have are to ensure the stability of funding and to focus our existing resources on the core and essential services. If the Canadian Medical Association, the public and the experts could help us to come up with a definition of core, we could get on to choices beyond medicare, choices which would reduce the existing line-ups.
(1550)
The medicare we have is vital and important and is something I will always argue in favour of and I will gladly pay my tax dollars to support it. However, we must make it efficient and effective and return to the best health care safety net in the world.
We have to remove the existing funding freeze. If we can we should give more money and look at restoring the per capita transfers to the 1992-93 levels rather than what the Liberals are doing, cutting by stealth.
Maybe we should consider converting the remaining cash transfers to tax point transfers. Index growth in transfers with economic and population growth trends; keep in touch with what is happening in society.
Focusing resources was another suggestion. Canadians need to define what constitutes core, essential health care services. For a broken arm one type of cast could cost more than another. Let us guarantee the cost. If other services are needed then there may be other ways to pay for it. Perhaps other people have suggestions on how funds could be raised for that.
Choices beyond medicare, we should consider removing existing restrictions in law which prohibit choices in basic health care beyond the publicly funded health care, medicare.
This is what the federal government stubbornly refuses to do. Where medicare does not meet the needs of Canadians, they should have the option to exercise these choices by finding services elsewhere if outside the scope of the core services.
Where Canadians exercise choice beyond medicare they will be responsible for arranging appropriate, private funding of such choices either with employer-employee benefit plans, third party insurance or through private resources.
This gives the provinces the flexibility. The five principles of medicare can still be ensured and guaranteed, but it gives the provinces some room to manoeuvre. These are things the federal government refuses to accept or even consider.
I have seen a copy of some talking points the federal government has given to its 177 members in terms of what to say on certain issues; how to brag about revisions to the MP pension plan it so proudly boasted about in the red book; that it has eliminated double dipping and that it has done this and that. Yet notwithstanding all the bragging comments, the government still has a pension plan four to five times better than that in the private sector and it still tries to justify its pension plan, the millions of dollars members will receive after leaving the House on the basis of the low $64,000 salary in the House.
I will read one of the talking points which will show the hypocrisy and duplicity. It will give further evidence of these two words through some specific examples: ``It is always intriguing to watch the right-wingers practice what they preach. The Ontario Tories have proposed a 5 per cent pay increase for themselves while slashing hospitals and social programs. At the same time, the Reform MP for Calgary Centre has proposed more than doubling MP salaries to $150,000 while his party has advocated two-tier medicare and the demolition of seniors' pensions. Our government has different priorities''.
Liberals are being told what to say out there, what to tell the Canadian public. This is so hypocritical and so duplicitous, it forces me to address this. I take exception to the use of political partisanship and the political game to this extent.
It says the provincial Tories have proposed a 5 per cent increase for themselves where they just announced they have rolled the MPP pensions into compensation and above board, taxable, look after yourself, thank you very much type of job. In fact, they have done the exact opposite. It is a 5 per cent decrease, according to the MPP pension plan in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
(1555)
The nerve of the government saying right-wing provincial governments slash hospitals and social programs. Excuse me, does it not realize who gives them the money? Does it not realize who is supposed to help fund social programs, hospitals and education? Who receives $7 billion less for education, health care and welfare? It is the provinces.
The government brags about the cuts it has made to program spending. All it has done is give the provinces less, which then in turn have to find the ways and means of delivering the same level of service they did before with less money.
Who gets rocks thrown at their windows? Who gets the rallies and the special interest groups complaining about what is happen-
ing? It is the provincial governments of Alberta and Ontario. They are the ones that get all the rallies, not the federal government. The federal government has been very smooth and good at reducing transfers to provinces, making them come up with the solutions, making the provincial governments the guilty party and at the same time increasing transfers to individuals.
The federal government has slashed spending to hospitals and education to the tune of $6.6 billion versus what we would have done, only $3.5 billion.
The government talks of compensation. It refers to me, the member for Calgary Centre, that I recommended doubling MP salaries. That is another hypocritical, duplicitous and self-serving statement. Every member knows the compensation in the House. They know the compensation consists of $64,000 on a yearly basis. There are two tax free allowances which we all get of $29,000. If that were transparent and taxable like everybody else's in the country, such as teachers and professors, that alone would equate to around $120,000.
I have not recommended doubling the salary to $120,000. What I am saying is that what members in the House already receive as salary is probably close to between $120,000 and $130,000.
All I am asking is to quit justifying this gold plated MP pension plan on the basis of one part of their salary when there are more parts to that salary than they pretend. That is hypocritical, that is duplicitous, it is self-serving and it is not coming clean with the Canadian public. I for one will not stand for.
I think it is stupid that any member of Parliament uses arguments like that to convince people of the sacrifice they have made to justify the millions of dollars after they leave the House. I find that offensive and I will never defend something like that.
I have given up an MP pension plan here. I will never qualify for one no matter how long I work here. I have to look after myself. I appreciate the government's doing that but even there it played a stupid game. It restricted future members from not being able to opt out. It gave it only to this crop of honest MPs from the Reform Party who stood on principle and put their money where their mouth is; but not this government.
The government says it has different priorities. You bet it does. Its priorities consist of broken promises, distorting the truth or exaggerating the truth, bragging to the public about its achievements.
Broken promises; it promised to protect civil servants and fired 44,000. It promised to renegotiate NAFTA and endorsed it carte blanche. We all know about the GST promise. Members opposite, members within the government are being kicked out because they know what they said door to door. They did not go door to door reading page 22 of the red book. Everyone of these hypocritical members of that party knows that.
For the Prime Minister to stand in the House today and say ``read page 22, that is what we said'', is a bunch of crap, and he knows it is crap. That is not what they said door to door. That is broken promises. That is hypocritical. That is duplicitous. That is self-serving and that is not coming clean with the Canadian public.
Talk about distorting the truth, they say Reformers would cut $25 billion in one year. That is not true. We would not cut $25 billion in one year. The truth is we would have cut $25 billion over three years.
(1600 )
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member for Calgary Centre may not mind it but I am having a devil of a time trying to listen to everybody at once. It is in the best spirit of debate in this House that whoever has the floor be given the opportunity to speak clearly without interruption.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I know I have hit a nerve when they start yelling. I know I am hitting the truth when they start to rebut.
I was giving examples. I am not trying to inflame or exaggerate; I am trying to be factual. I have given examples on distorting the truth.
Who is slash and burn? Not us. It is this government unloading onto the provinces and bragging to the public about its achievements on deficit elimination, deficit reduction, that they broke the back of the deficit. If a $30 billion deficit is breaking the back of the deficit, if projecting a $24 billion deficit next year is breaking the back of the deficit, if adding $111 billion to the debt is putting Canada's financial house in order, we damn well do need a new finance minister. We need a new CEO and a vice-president of finance because these two people are doing this country a great disservice.
Worst of all this government has different priorities which really frustrates me. The government has the priority of cover-up from the department of defence where it covers up on Somalia. Here is a minister who gives instructions which are not even followed. Is that respect? He is out of control with his department just as the Minister of Health is with his.
The Krever commission was set up to find out the truth. I have a letter from a lady whose husband died as a result of tainted blood. She also has it now because they did not come clean with her and tell her what was going on. They did not provide adequate information to prevent her infection. This lady is going to die and what does the government do? What does the justice minister do? They comply with all these idiot groups that want to ban the release of what the Krever commission is finding out. Is that serving the Canadian public?
Something went wrong. Do Canadians not have the right to know what went wrong? We are not looking to jail anybody, we just want
the truth. We want to know what happened and when it happened. The government should be embarrassed about that. If that is the kind of government the Liberals like, if those are their priorities, they are welcome to them.
I would have nothing to do with this. It is frustrating. I heard the Liberals say one thing in opposition. I read about it and heard about it and now the Liberals are the same as the Tories. They are doing what they want in government. It is not right.
This country deserves justice. It deserves honesty from its politicians. It deserves more than simple rhetoric, saying one thing to get elected and then laughing and doing something else once there. The Canadian public deserves more and it can get more. There are more Liberal backbenchers with more integrity than any I see along the front line of this House of Commons.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I note with some interest that the member mentioned our country's blood supply system. The important Krever inquiry has been put into place because the Liberals in opposition called for it and saw fit to put it in place.
The member's colleague from Port Moody-Coquitlam discussed the blood system at some length earlier in the debate. I want to assure all members that a safe and secure blood supply system is of critical importance to me as well. It is an issue I am fairly familiar with. It has been a horrible piece of our history which we need to address.
Both members have forgotten, or perhaps they have chosen to overlook the fact that this government is taking a leadership role on the issue of the blood supply system. On March 11 the Minister of Health announced his initiative to put a plan of action in place in order to be prepared when Justice Krever submits his final report. On the interim recommendations of Justice Krever, the Minister of Health has already put in place a number of those recommendations to make sure the system is cleaned up.
This is a leadership issue. That is what the Reform members and many Canadians have called for, leadership. In the course of this debate I have not heard what the Reform Party would do on this critical issue. Perhaps the members opposite could share very specifically with this House their proposals to improve our blood supply system. What is the member's idea for what we can do to show leadership? What would he do on the blood supply system if he were in government?
(1605)
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I compliment the hon. member on her position on the blood inquiry. I do not find that I disagree very much with what she said. It does bother me though and I do question whether she got my point about duplicity, saying one thing and doing another.
The member stands up and brags about how it was the Liberal Party that commissioned the inquiry. She then fails to go ahead. She is like the finance minister; he only does one side of the equation and never does the other side.
The other side of the equation is: Why will the government not allow the information the commission is gathering, the facts of the blood inquiry it is receiving, to be released? Why is the muzzle being put on by the government? The member may brag about striking the commission and putting it in place, but why will this new information not be released?
The member asks what I would do if I were the Minister of Health. I would need all the facts before I would make a decision. One thing I know I would do is I would make sure to have something in place before all these victims died. Perhaps there are as many as 12,000 victims, I do not know.
A personal friend was affected by this and he died at a very young age. He was just a boy and got tainted blood. It really comes close to my heart when I see this. These families are victims no different from and no less than victims of crimes by weapons or physical abuse. This is something serious. I would have at least addressed the victims. I would have told them how they would be compensated and when and what would be left for their families when they passed away so that there would be some security in the future. That is not being addressed. That is being avoided. The hue and cry out there is for that to be resolved.
I would not muzzle the final report of the commission. I would allow for its timely release and would let the cards fall where they may. For those who were supposed to be responsible, those who did a good job would be complimented. Those who did a poor job would be reprimanded. Those who were guilty of any criminal actions would then pay the price for it, nothing more, nothing less. A lot of people are dying.
Those are the things I would do. I am not a medical expert. I do know that the system and a whole department has come under question. The Canadian Red Cross, my gosh, I have always looked up to that organization. I have given blood and I still do.
If something happened, tell us what happened so we can avoid it in the future. There is nothing to run and hide from. Why cover up? That is why I am accusing this government of cover up. That is what it is doing.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to address some of the comments the hon. member has just brought forward is very significant. Before coming to this place, I came out of the health care profession and I had dealt internationally with Red Cross centres and blood supplies around the world.
Hindsight is wonderful vision. In the early eighties when we were reading the scientific literature regarding HIV and all of the
proposals that were coming forward there had to be a judgment call: Is this significant enough to test at this point; is the test specific enough to identify this particular virus if it can be called a virus? It is an example of a microbe that encapsulates itself and changes over time. It is not something that can be pinpointed very specifically, identified, chased down and a concoction found that would immediately cure or prevent this very dreadful disease. Back in the early eighties it was very much a judgment call. Looking back, perhaps we did not make the best judgment as early as we should have in the history of our blood supply.
I would remind the hon. member for Calgary Centre that the Canadian Red Cross is one of the most honourable institutions in the world. It is one of the most highly respected blood supply sources.
I have worked in that field where there are transmissible diseases such as hepatitis, AIDS and many other things we cannot even begin to test for or identify. We go through a spectrum of tests which is broad enough and significant enough that we can guarantee Canadians and whoever else across this world uses our blood supply that we are giving them the best product that can be tested and identified in the marketplace today.
(1610 )
I have worked internationally in other blood supply systems. It is like setting an aeroplane and navigation system. If one makes the system so absolutely perfect that it is foolproof, there would never be a child flying to Disneyworld to see that great and wonderful spectacular event. Yet we can do things within a realm of safety and predictability that we provide a product which is safe and available for those in need of health care. There will come a time when we have a synthetic and artificial blood supply that can transport oxygen throughout the body and maintain a healthy body without the risk of those transmissible diseases.
The Canadian Red Cross may not be perfect. Perhaps it did not make its decision soon enough to trust that international literature and scientific reports were significant enough that we should challenge and start testing, although it was not as specific or as good as it should have been at the time.
I would challenge the hon. member. There is a lot to be thankful for in our Red Cross in the safety and respect it holds throughout the world in this very valuable blood product.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments and the intervention by the hon. member. I found that her from the heart, off the top of her head defence of the Canadian Red Cross and of the blood system and relating to us her past experience were very admirable. An even better compliment is that it was much better than the department's canned speech she read a couple of weeks ago. Maybe she should speak her mind more often and we would all be better off based on her wisdom and her knowledge. This House could benefit from it, with respect.
The member knows darn well that I am not criticizing the Red Cross. I am criticizing a system that has been set in place. The information has to be gathered and should be shared with the many people who suffered. The victims of the tainted blood want to know what happened. That is all they want to know. I do not think they want to go on a witch hunt. They just want to know. I do not know why this government is catering to the former ministers of health, the pharmaceutical agencies and the people who are now filing legal petitions to prevent this report from being made public. That is the part I do not understand.
My point today in debate was to point out that this government is hypocritical in its actions and is duplicitous in the self-serving rhetoric it uses. I tried to give specific examples. A lot of the time the rhetoric is good. In fact a lot of time it is the same as ours and I would swear that the government stole some of our speeches, but its actions are not the same and do not match the rhetoric that it uses.
That is a disservice to the Canadian public. It is a disservice to the government. Canadians are much smarter than a lot of politicians give them credit for. In our isolated little world here we tend to believe what we see on TV, what we read in the newspapers, the national media types. We think that is what is important but it is not. What is important is the grassroots. Our constituencies are what are important and we should always stay in touch with them.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-18 sponsored by the Minister of Health. It is an act to establish the Department of Health and to amend and repeal certain acts. The substance of the act is ostensibly to take into account the reorganization of Health Canada to operate now as Health Canada as opposed to health and welfare.
There subsequently have been some changes to the original bill. One had to do with ministerial responsibility. There has been an important motion made to amend Bill C-18 in a way that will continue to ensure ministerial accountability under the laws of Canada.
(1615 )
Canada has the best health care system in the world. That is undeniable. There are five principles of the Canada Health Act. One of those principles is universality: health care is available to all Canadians. I will speak more about that a little later on.
The second principle is public administration. The third principle is portability which means that people can receive the health care services they need regardless of where they live or where they travel in Canada. The fourth principle is accessibility. This ensures that health care is reasonably accessible for the important health
care needs of Canadians. The final principle is comprehensiveness. This means that our health care system continues to provide the broadest range of essential or necessary health care componentsto Canadians.
These are the five principles which the Government of Canada and the Minister of Health continue to talk about to the Canadian people. They also talk about its implications to Canada as a country.
There has been a lot of discussion about the possibility of things like extra billing, user fees or some other special arrangements but that is not the philosophy or the principles of the Canada Health Act.
The Canada Health Act and its five principles are a very important component of Canadian unity. They are principles which I believe have made probably the largest contribution to keeping Canada together and keeping it strong and united. It is a fibre that transcends all partisan politics, notwithstanding the comments just heard from the previous speaker.
The Canada Health Act represents an instrument of the Canadian government. It represents the principles that we want to share with all Canadians, features such as helping those most in need first. We want to make sure that under any circumstance Canadians will never feel alone when it comes to their health care and other social needs.
We want to make sure Canadians understand that in our health system, the best system in the world, they will receive health care not because they have money but because they are sick. That is a principle and a value of which I am very proud and about which most Canadians are very proud.
The previous speaker talked about long line-ups in hospitals and a number of other things. I want to comment briefly on line-ups in hospitals. I spent a number of years as a trustee for the hospital in my community of Mississauga, the Mississauga General Hospital, a 600-bed facility with an excellent, well-trained and well-qualified staff.
A tremendous metamorphosis in health care has taken place over the last decade. The changes within the health care system are substantial in that there was, as evidenced, a shift or a reduction in the average length of stay by patients in hospitals from somewhere in the neighbourhood of 7.2 days average to about 4.2 days. That represents a very significant efficiency, a productivity improvement and a savings to the hospital environment to deliver care.
During that period, the Mississauga hospital reduced the number of beds from some 600 down to below 500 beds. However, in terms of the statistics, the hospital continued to serve more patients than it did as a 600-bed facility. One of the critical reasons for that has to do with the shift in philosophy toward ambulatory care. It used to be that one would go into the hospital and prepare for a surgical procedure maybe a day or two in advance and stay a little longer. Now one goes in a little later, the day of surgery, and then goes home early enough to convalesce in one's home environment, which the medical profession has found to be a more conducive environment to the healing process. The other aspect of the shift to ambulatory care is basically for people to receive their services and then move out. All of this has resulted in substantial savings to the health care system over the years.
(1620)
The funding of hospitals is a joint responsibility between the federal and provincial governments. Through the transfers to the provinces, the federal government funds a very substantial portion of health care costs but it is administered and managed by the provincial governments. Through that administration certain funds are granted for capital purposes as well as for operating budgets.
It is up to the provinces to deliver the capital and the operating revenue necessary under certain guidelines concerning which they have some discretion. However they have no discretion with regard to the five principles of the Canada Health Act.
The savings that were achieved over these many years as a result of improved technologies, of care giving and medicine, of the shift to an ambulatory based system and simply due to productivity improvements in the health care sector, went to benefit the provincial governments. As announced by the Minister of Finance in his first budget two years ago, changes were made in the transfers to the provinces with regard to the various elements of the transfers. It is now called the Canada health and social transfer.
The federal government never got benefit or credit for those savings or efficiencies within the health care system. They were all left to the provinces. This ensured they had the kinds of tools necessary to maintain, protect and defend the principles of the Canada Health Act. Now the government must make sure it is doing even better and will continue to do better with the limited dollars available for all spending purposes and for the health and welfare of all Canadians.
I would like to highlight a couple of features of the Canada health and social transfer. This instrument and the so-called block funding was created by a situation to do with the combined value of the cash transfers to the provinces as well as tax points, or the ability to tax at the provincial level.
One thing that occurred was that the cash component of those transfers was beginning to be reduced. In circumstances where provinces had violated certain principles of the Canada Health Act, the federal Minister of Health would have stepped in and after some review and time for correction, would have withheld certain
amounts of cash transfers to the province, until such time as the province desisted from a particular activity.
As long as there is a cash component in the transfer to the provinces, the federal government has the opportunity to enforce the principles of the Canada Health Act. However, it was very clear that in time the cash component would disappear. In fact, the federal government would not have an opportunity to enforce the principles of the Canada Health Act.
As a result, the combination of various levels of transfers, not only for health but for post-secondary education and the Canada assistance plan, does provide some latitude where cash under all of the block funding will be available for an extended period.
Since that time the finance minister has also put in place as a result of the budget a new funding arrangement that provides an iron clad guarantee that the cash cannot fall below $11 billion.
Fiscal responsibility was an issue about which the previous speaker wanted to spend quite a bit of time talking. The federal government has shown a continued, strong and unwavering commitment to the five principles of the Canada Health Act and an unwavering commitment to ensure there is a cash component available to the provinces so they can continue to administer the health system and still respect the five principles of the Canada Health Act.
I want to make a comment about some other items, having been a member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health since January 1994. The committee has looked at a couple of areas and the member touched on them, for instance, cigarettes. The members of the committee looked at health warning labels on tobacco products, as well as plain paper packaging. There were a number of other initiatives which the committee has considered because of statistics, such as 40,000 Canadians die each year as a result of tobacco use.
(1625)
These issues are important to Canadians. They want us to continue to look at ways in which we can provide cost effective health care and also shift the emphasis away from cures and remedies to prevention. That is the important issue.
Today Canada spends approximately 75 per cent of its health care dollars on curative or remedial approaches and only 25 per cent on prevention. It is becoming very evident that to continue spending money at those levels is unsustainable. Ways have to be found to shift those dollars into the preventive sphere so that savings can be achieved and the costs which will be incurred forgone if certain products are not used more responsibly in our society.
Tobacco is one of those products. Another which is very important to me these days has to do with alcohol consumption, and particularly the misuse of alcohol. My private member's Bill C-222 calls for health warning labels on alcoholic beverage containers.
A number of people have asked why I am doing this. The answer is painfully obvious to many Canadians. In fact, some 19,000 people die each year from alcohol related causes. Alcohol costs Canada approximately $15 billion in health care costs, social program costs, criminal justice costs and productivity. Fifty per cent of family violence cases are related to alcohol abuse. One in six family breakdowns are related to alcohol abuse. Thirty per cent of suicides are related to alcohol abuse. Forty per cent of automobile accidents are related to alcohol abuse. I could go on and on. Everyone knows how terrible it is in our society. The costs are very significant.
The direct alcohol related cost of some $15 billion is only a portion of it. The ripple effect and the impact on families and friends is far more than $15 billion.
Five per cent of birth defects are caused by alcohol consumption. There is a problem known as fetal alcohol syndrome. Medical expenses incurred during the lifetime of a fetal alcohol child cost Canadians approximately $1.5. million. Fetal alcohol syndrome costs Canada approximately $2.7 billion a year. Another problem is known as fetal alcohol effects. It is very similar to fetal alcohol syndrome, but it does not have the same physical effects. However, it occurs two to three times more than FAS.
This is the kind of thing at which the health care system has to look. We are talking about tens of billions of dollars in expenses because products are misused. People do not take care of themselves or they do not make positive lifestyle choices.
These are the things which are important to Canadians. They want to ensure that health care dollars are spent wisely and that we look at ways to save money on direct health care, as well as reducing the demand on the system so that we can ensure its long term sustainability for all Canadians for generations to come. That is the important message.
I have listened to other speakers. I understand the role of opposition members and that they have to be critical of the government. However, I do not understand how partisan speeches can be given in the House which talk about hypocrisy, duplicity, broken promises and cover-ups, and then attempt to talk eloquently about the blood commission.
The blood commission affects many Canadians. It is very tragic. I want all Canadians to know our blood supply system today is safe. Immediate steps were taken to ensure the safety of our blood supply system.
(1630)
However, that does not relieve us of the responsibility to have an inquiry, the Krever commission, to look at all of the things that happened during that period to ensure we understand what happened, that we make sure there is nothing left to correct, to ensure there is no future risk to our blood supply system. Those are the things that are important.
Canadians need to have that confidence level. They need to have the feeling we are doing the right things. I do not think they got it from the comments made by the previous speaker who tended to suggest that somehow there were still problems here.
Anytime is a good time to get the facts right. If it takes more time to make sure they are right so we can have the correct information in order to make correct decisions, then I say we have to move on with this.
The commission is doing its work. The same can be said with regard to the Somalia case and members' compensation, which the member wanted to talk about. He showed a tremendous amount of frustration but I do not want to fall into that trap.
I simply want to reiterate for all members and for all Canadians that the Canadian health care system is the very best in the world. We are the envy of every other country. We have principles which the federal government is committed to defend and to protect. We will never leave any person in Canada without the protection of our health plan.
The principle all Canadians should remember is that in Canada health care will be available to you not because you have money but because you are sick. The Prime Minister has made that commitment. I trust the Prime Minister and I know Canadians trust the Prime Minister.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Mississauga South and the member for Calgary Centre who both touched on a very important aspect of the Krever commission debate on Canada's blood supply. However, they did not explore it as fully as I would like to in my remarks.
We sometimes have the problem that rhetoric gets in the way of a clear discussion of the consequences of events evolving around us. In the case of the Krever commission and the Somalia inquiry, the issue of the destruction of documents has been repeatedly raised. This is a central issue to the accountability of all government departments, including the accountability of Health Canada.
If officials are allowed to destroy documents without fear of severe consequences, not only would the public be denied access to the truth but there would be no such thing as ministerial accountability. How could a minister know, be it the minister of defence or the health minister, what was actually occurring if officialswere destroying documents and preventing people from getting at the truth?
It is not just an issue of whether the media, the press or even MPs have access to the documents that tell the story, perhaps a very terrible story, the issue is whether the minister actually has access to these documents.
The Access to Information Act contains no provision which specifically applies sanctions to government officials' destroying documents. This is a terrific omission. I will say publicly that the information commissioner, John Grace, has done a wonderful job in bringing before the public the entire issue of the destruction of documents.
This is a very essential issue, essential to our very democracy, this question of whether officials, elected or unelected, can cover-up accidents of incompetence, to use the words of the official opposition. We are probably talking more about incompetence than malfeasance here.
Unfortunately not only is there no provision in the Access to Information Act to prevent this, there is no other provision save for one clause. I do not remember the section number, but one section in the Criminal Code forbids government functionaries from deliberately wilfully destroying documents. However, the penalty is less than two years.
(1635 )
Opposition parties as well as government members would do well to pay very close attention to this failure in existing legislation to protect Canadians, to give Canadians the opportunity, be they elected officials or ordinary Canadians, to have access to the truth of what goes on in the events that affect them the most.
I cannot prejudge the findings of either the Somalia inquiry or the Krever inquiry, but at issue here is not just what the truth was but whether the truth will ever be available to Canadians. On issues in all ministries, certainly in Health Canada, because decisions are made that affect human lives, we as Canadians need the opportunity to examine those decisions.
I use the analogy of mad cow disease in Britain. Certain decisions were made by both government and bureaucrats that have put in jeopardy about $11 billion in the economy and possibly human lives as well. We need the opportunity when major government departments are making decisions on our behalf to to examine them to make sure those decisions are being made wisely and well.
I think the member for Mississauga South would support me in suggesting that changes to the Access to Information Act would be of great assistance to giving the kind of accountability we demand of the best health service in the world, Health Canada.
Mr. Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the member certainly does raise some interesting points. He said them quite well and I will not try to elaborate.
However, I note from an extract of Hansard of November 18, 1992 that the member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, the current Minister of Health, speaking to the then Minister of National Health and Welfare, called for a public inquiry into the blood supply conducted by individuals of the highest calibre and qualifications.
On that basis I have absolutely no question in my mind the health minister is fully committed to dealing with the blood supply issue in the most thorough and open fashion possible.
On March 11 of this year the minister did announce that he is calling on the partners in Canada's blood supply system to discuss how to redefine and renew the blood system. The minister has reaffirmed that all the partners in the blood system, including consumer groups, must work together to plan and provide for the preparation of the final recommendations of the commission of inquiry on the blood system in Canada.
I do not want to belabour it, but I know the minister absolutely concurs with the member that information must be on the table. We are prepared to receive, now that we have the interim report of Justice Krever, the final recommendations to move forward to ensure we have a safe and secure blood supply system in Canada.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member for Mississauga South is obviously very well versed on health issues. I bring the following proposition to his attention.
[Translation]
These past few weeks, the Minister of Health has been criticized by Bloc Quebecois members, and the Bloc's critic for health in particular, for his initiative concerning cheese made from raw milk. I am one of those members who represent rural ridings. Of course, prima facie, nobody wants stricter rules to be imposed on any industry, especially not one located in our own electoral riding.
At any rate, the health minister did bring this issue to the attention of the House, or rather submitted it through the regulatory process to seek the public's opinion.
[English]
I bring the following to the attention of the House. I do this with the concurrence of my electors. A constituent of mine, Mr. Robert Redmond, son of Mrs. Barbara and Mr. J.P. Redmond of Vankleek Hill, Ontario, is presently in a hospital in Toronto recovering from having contracted listeria bacteria, apparently from having consumed raw milk cheese. This person is now paralyzed.
(1640)
I ask my colleague if he does not agree with me that as difficult as this issue is, the Minister of Health is right in at least gazetting this particular regulation to make sure that in a responsible way, which he is as the minister, that all sides of this issue be heard.
I have more constituents who are dairy producers than anyone else in the House-
[Translation]
Mrs. Picard: Mr. Speaker, we are here to discuss Bill C-18, not raw milk cheese. I think the hon. member is out of order.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): With all due respect for the hon. member, the issue of relevance is always a difficult one. A degree of flexibility comes into play. While the debate is on the critical issue of health, I think that the member can raise a health related issue.
As I just said, with all due respect for the hon. member for Drummond, this is a matter of debate; it is not a point of order.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, does my colleague not agree with me that the minister acted responsibly in ensuring this issue was gazetted and permitted that consultation to ensure that on one hand my dairy producer constituents are protected and that on the other people like Mr. Redmond, this young person paralysed in hospital today, also receive the protection of our health care system, and that the minister, knowing these issues are important, brought it to the committee?
Would my colleague not agree that the minister in his power under this act did the appropriate thing in referring this issue to the gazetting process which permits that kind of consultation with Canadians?
Mr. Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the chief government whip raises a very important and timely issue. He is quite correct.
As the minister indicated, we want to get all the facts and listen to Canadians before any decisions are taken. That is why he sent out draft regulations for a 75-day comment period.
The government is not prepared to take risks with the health and safety of Canadians. Evidence suggests there may be increased risks of illnesses or disease when consuming cheese made from raw milk. Obviously from the example cited by the hon. member, this is a very important issue and I know it will receive due attention and care by the Government of Canada to ensure the health of all Canadians.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Mercier-unemployment insurance reform.
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address this bill which seeks to create a superfluous department-
An hon. member: Superfluous?
Mr. Fillion: Yes, superfluous. This bill will allow the House to spend over $1 billion and to hire 8,000 people before even treating one person and taking one medical action regarding a patient.
I can understand that members opposite are a bit touchy when questioned about the establishment of such a department, which brings nothing new and which favours overlap more than anything else.
(1645)
These people of course are very sensitive; they get touchy when we raise this issue. All the more so because a debate like this one allows us to point out some electoral promises in the red book that have still not been kept. When we do that, they fidget and get upset.
The establishment of this department shows us once again that the federal government seeks to act in an area of jurisdiction where it has no authority. I say it once again because this is not the first time this happens, since the House has considered bills to establish other departments also.
Yet, the minister would have us believe that this is an act without much importance, that this is no big deal, as we say where I come from, and that the bill's aim is simply to change the department's name. Nonsense. It is more than that. I will take a few minutes to demonstrate that this is not true.
When we read the bill and look at paragraph 4(2)(a), describing the minister's powers, duties and functions, we have to pay attention, because that is what the whole bill is about.
This provision says that the promotion and preservation of the physical, mental and social well-being of the people of Canada will be ensured by the department. What a fine plan of action. With such a mandate, however, the minister is using the physical, mental and social well-being of the population to interfere even more in the area of health. This is the federal government's excuse for claiming a legitimate authority over a matter of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. This issue has already been raised in this House, and it has also been raised in other legislatures throughout Canada.
Discussions over this intrusion clearly show that everybody is fed up. The BNA act of 1867 provides for provincial primacy over health. That provision has not been amended, as far as I know. The federal government does not have any power over health except what flows from its spending power, which it interprets in a such a way as to set up departments in areas over which it has no jurisdiction whatsoever. The federal spending power is a licence to do as it pleases.
It is also because of this spending power that this government and the previous one have accumulated a huge debt. While driving us ever deeper into debt, this government is reducing transfer payments to provinces. These payments are being constantly reduced, yet they are made under certain conditions. The provinces can lose them if those conditions are not met. And successive budgets have made cuts.
(1650)
Let us consider what happened recently in British Columbia, where new welfare measures and structures were put into place. Since these structures and measures did not meet national standards, the Minister of Human Resources Development told the provincial authorities that they would suffer the consequences if they did not move toward those standards, because there would be cuts.
In fact, I do not think that this situation has been resolved. In fact, negotiations between the federal government and that province are still going on. These negotiations are time-consuming and extremely costly. In the meantime, the recipients, the people in need, are getting low quality, substandard services. Therefore, within specific programs, the money allocated to the people in need is not totally spent on them. If we take into account all the money that is spent on management and on discussions at various levels, what is left? Very little, only half of what should have been allocated to the programs and gone directly to the citizens.
However, a lot of existing acts ensure that the doors are wide open-and I say wide open-for the health department to intrude on areas under provincial jurisdiction. There are, for instance, the Criminal Code, the Narcotic Control Act and the Food and Drugs Act, where the central government is getting fully involved.
Of course there is duplication in health care. I have always wondered why members of the armed forces were not treated by the same physicians as everybody else. Why was this kind of health care system created within the armed forces? You certainly know that the army has its own physicians, its own dentists and its own psychiatrists. They have a parallel system for every type of health care service found in a province.
Imagine the costs. Imagine the savings we could make if these people used the services provided by the provinces. But no, the army had to build this large structure that cost a lot of money. Moreover, the army had to have the required infrastructure to accommodate these people, so it built military hospitals across the country.
Let us not forget about the social health services that are mainly for aboriginal people and residents of northern Canada. This is all duplication. Since aboriginal people are under federal jurisdiction, the health department is responsible for them. Duplication, overlap, and at what cost?
I can easily understand why our debt is growing so rapidly. Canadians are making the necessary effort to pay taxes in order to reduce this debt, but the government is not doing what needs to be done. It is creating parallel structures while we can barely pay the interest on the debt.
(1655)
The federal government has no right to interfere in these areas, but it is doing so anyway. It is doing so with Bill C-18. It wants the right to interfere in the area of health care. This is just one more instrument to launch debates between the provinces, debates that lead absolutely nowhere. Let us leave these rights where they belong.
If members look at the funding aspect, they will see that something is wrong in this bill. Members will recall that transfers to the provinces do not come from the health department but from the finance department.
This is a situation I would call ludicrous. The Department of Health will set its national objectives, the standards to be met if the provinces are to get their money, but it is the Minister of Finance who eventually-although the cost has not yet been calculated-will make the decision, depending on what he wants to have as a deficit or a debt. He will decide what amount will be transferred. He sets the amounts himself without assessing the costs of the national standards.
Putting it more clearly, this means that the Minister of Health tells the provinces what they need to do, and then the Minister of Finance hands over the money: ``Manage with that as you can''. Obviously, reducing transfer payments indicates a lack of cohesion somewhere. The objectives remain the same, but cannot be met if the financial resources are not there.
In Quebec, what is transferred or not transferred, depending on the mood of the Minister of Finance, is tax points. Naturally, in the aftermath of the massive cuts to health and the Canada transfer to the provinces, Quebec will soon be receiving no more real money, just tax points. What does that mean? It means that the government will have to either limit services or increase taxes in order to provide quality services, yet with less money.
What makes the situation ridiculous is that, once again, the federal government will continue to dictate to Quebec what it must do, while the federal government will not cough up one cent more.
Contrary to what one might think, the Minister of Health plays a very great economic role as well. That economic role has repercussions within each region. When there is a shortfall somewhere, cuts somewhere, the entire population, the entire region feels it. In Health Canada's 1995-96 main estimates, it indicates financial requirements of a little more than $1 billion for operations.
Very often, as I said at the beginning, when that money is spent on infrastructures or discussions here, there and everywhere, there is very little left for medical care for Canadians.
I would also like to focus on the national forum on health, held in October 1994, when we were here in this House.
(1700)
It was obvious that this government wanted to increase its involvement in the area of public health. Visibility was the watchword of this forum. This government tries to pounce on everything that moves to increase its visibility. Instead of increasing its credibility, it increases its visibility. Flags are going to be flown all over the place; we are inundated with flyers from each department; they are very visible. But when the time comes to provide heath care, the government is no longer visible. It does not believe in high quality care. It would rather have little red flags on paper, brochures, and cheques instead of improving its credibility.
It is no wonder so many people no longer trust politicians. It is very simple. When you do not take any action, when you act solely to be visible, you cannot expect any other outcome.
As a matter of fact, as far as the national forum is concerned, I remind the House that every single province, not only Quebec, openly criticized the government's attitude. Why? Because the government wanted them to play second fiddle with regard to health. In this respect, many people can be quoted. The Conservative health minister in Ontario criticized the federal government, saying that the federal government's attempt to impose its own interpretation of the health care principles should be opposed.
The Conservative premier of Alberta was of the same mind. He condemned the inflexibility of the federal government in that area.
Furthermore, this government reneged on one of the red book promises. Let me quote it. It is said in the red book that ``a Liberal government will establish a National Forum on Health'', up to here everything is fine, ``chaired by the Prime Minister'', imagine, the Prime Minister himself will chair the forum, downplaying all other participants, but even that would have been acceptable, ``bringing
together for public discussion the major partners and parties involved with the health of Canadians''. So everybody was to be on the same level, talking about health problems, with a moderator in the centre who just happens to be our Prime Minister.
In spite of this firm commitment, again stated clearly in the Liberals' red book, the federal government refused to let the provinces participate fully in the proceedings of the national forum on health.
This government wanted to grant provinces observer status only.
As you are indicating that my time is almost up, I will conclude with the following. The provinces are should be the main players as far as health is concerned. The central government should review its intention to cut the Canada health and social transfer. It should no longer offload the deficit onto the provinces. Why? Because this impacts on the quality of health care and adds to the financial burden of each and every Canadian.
(1705)
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak, at third reading stage, on Bill C-18, an act to establish the Department of Health and to amend and repeal certain acts.
I believe it is essential to remind my fellow citizens that health is a provincial jurisdiction under sections 16(7) and (16) of the BNA Act of 1867, and the interpretation given to it by the courts. It is clearly established and recognized that health and social services are exclusively under provincial jurisdiction. However, the federal government has often intruded in the health sector, over the years.
Since the beginning of the century, the federal government passed the following health legislation. In 1919, it created its health department and gave its first grants; in 1948, it put in place a national program of health grants; in 1957, it passed the federal act on hospital insurance, in 1966, the medical care act and, in 1984, the Canada Health Act that superseded the 1957 and 1966 acts.
Moreover, this act established the federal principles governing the Canadian health system, enacted national standards and, by the changes it imposed, limited Quebec's autonomy. Bill C-6 of 1984 set out the criteria to be met by the provinces, including universality, accessibility, portability, public administration and comprehensiveness. Otherwise, the federal government might withhold its financial contribution to health care.
The Quebec government has always condemned federal meddling in the area of health. In 1926, the Taschereau government-a good Liberal government, needless to say-was the first one to oppose federal interference in health care, and all successive Quebec governments have followed suit.
Although the health and social service system appears to have originated in Ottawa, it was only used as an excuse by the federal government to gradually encroach on an area of provincial jurisdiction. Every federal intrusion in health care forced the Quebec government to respond in order to regain full control and assert its determination to exercise its authority in an area under its exclusive jurisdiction.
Let me remind the House, for example, of two great moments in Quebec's history with respect to health care. In response to the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act passed by the House of Commons in 1957, Jean Lesage, then the Liberal premier of Quebec and a former minister in Lester B. Pearson's federal government, set up Quebec's hospital insurance plan, which was approved by the National Assembly in 1961.
After the House of Commons passed the Medical Care Act in 1966, Robert Bourassa's Liberal government introduced the health insurance act, which was adopted by the Quebec National Assembly in 1970.
Over the years, the federal government's meddling cost taxpayers more and more money. Ottawa could afford to be generous as it was using the provinces' money or buying on credit through its own unlimited spending powers, which played a large part in getting all of us into debt.
May I remind the House briefly that, during the second world war, the federal government invoked the war effort to encroach on the area of corporate and personal income taxes, which was then under provincial jurisdiction. This measure, which was supposed to be temporary, is still in place. The federal government has clearly succumbed to the temptation of exerting greater control and, instead of giving back to the provinces the taxation powers they enjoyed before the war, granting subsidies linked to the establishment of federally approved programs.
(1710)
By exercising such control over tax revenues, the federal government has been able to keep on centralizing, which caused untold duplication and shameful squandering of taxpayers' money. Worse yet, to make sure they would remain in office, generation upon generation of federal politicians distributed presents, even if it meant putting future generations of Quebecers, Canadians and, just for you, Madam Speaker, Acadians, into debt.
In the report of 1987 commission of inquiry on health and social services in Quebec, Thomas Dupéré wrote that establishing federal programs merely shifted to the federal level a debate that had already started at the provincial level and would have led to the same results over the same period of time, give or take a few months or a few years.
It is therefore pretentious to claim that, through its involvement, Ottawa has been an instigator in the social and health area. It would be more accurate to say that Ottawa's action was made much easier by the concentration of resources that took place at the federal level during the second world war. Ottawa took over the provinces' idea of developing a health care system. After the federal government made an about-face in 1945, refusing to give back the taxation it was supposed to have taken away from the provinces
only on a temporary basis, Ottawa had the means to act, to carry out its plans to encroach on exclusive provincial powers.
Today, in spite of the fact that health is clearly an area of provincial jurisdiction, Health Canada looms large. Its operating budget for 1995-96 is $1.5 billion, $347 million of which just goes to pay federal employees, from Newfoundland to British Columbia, to administer something that essentially comes under provincial jurisdiction and $703 million to procure goods and services for the department, while transfer payments to the provinces are $7 billion for the same year.
Altogether more than $8 billion is being spent in an area that comes under provincial jurisdiction. That is one quarter of the past year's deficit. When we look at all the departments where there is duplication, it is easy to imagine what how much money this government is wasting and to see how the current situation came about.
However, the federal government never indicated that it intended to loosen its grip on the Canadian health system. Also, during the election campaign, the Liberal Party of Canada wrote in the red book, and I quote: ``The role of the federal government should include the mobilization of effort to bring together Canada's wealth of talent and knowledge in the health care field. This is a societal issue in which every Canadian has an interest. The federal government must provide the means to ensure that Canadians are involved and informed, and can understand the issues and the options''.
For once, the Liberal Party kept its word. Last June 29, even though all the provinces were opposed, the then Minister of Health announced the creation of the national forum on health. The forum was to define a vision of the Canadian health system in the 21st century, to promote dialogue between Canadians concerning their health system, and to set priorities for the future.
On October 14, 1994, Quebec's minister of health and social services, Jean Rochon, wrote to the federal Minister of Health to tell her, and I quote: ``The mandate of this forum is an encroachment by the federal government in a field which essentially falls under provincial jurisdiction, and that is unacceptable. The clearly stated objective of your government, which is to give the forum a mandate to define future priorities, in the context of health care reform, and to define the means to that end, is a direct intrusion in provincial governments' affairs. This is something that cannot be hidden behind the consultative nature you ascribe to the recommendations that would come out of this forum''.
Incidentally, Mr. Rochon, the Quebec Minister of Health, was recently congratulated for the courage he displayed in implementing the health reform in Quebec by one of his predecessors, Marc-Yvan Côté, who is well known to the Liberal Party of Canada, since it recruited him to be its chief organizer in Quebec, in anticipation of the next federal election.
(1715)
In his letter to the federal health minister, Mr. Rochon added that Quebec had not waited for the federal government to adjust its health care system according to current needs, and that extensive public consultations had already taken place.
Moreover, he reminded his federal counterpart that cuts in health related transfers to the provinces were not the best way for a government to protect and to promote health care in Canada.
Indeed, it is precisely these cuts that undermine the very principles stated in the Canada Health Act.
While the federal government was pursuing its efforts to take control over a field of provincial jurisdiction, it unilaterally and drastically reduced its contributions to provincial health programs. In that regard, in the spring of 1995, the National Council of Welfare, whose role it is to give advice to the Minister of Health, warned the government against such a situation, saying that it would be very hypocritical to reduce contributions to provinces while increasing the requirements they have to meet.
Yet, this is precisely what is happening. I should point out that, when the finance department created the program called established programs financing, through which transfers to provinces are made regarding social services, health and education, it was understood that such transfer payments would be indexed according to the growth in the Canadian economy.
Since 1986, the federal government has been using money from these transfers to contain its deficit. It made a unilateral decision, without any regard for the provinces' ability to cope. Between 1982 and 1995, it saved, at the expense of Quebecers, $8 billion in the health sector alone. This shortfall forced Quebec to increase taxes to make up for the federal withdrawal.
According to a study carried out by the C.D. Howe Institute between 1988 and 1992, while established programs financing expenditures remained stagnant, other federal program expenditures increased by 25.5 per cent. In other words, while the federal government was telling the provinces to tighten their belts, it continued to spend right and left and to add to the deficit and the debt.
This lack of stability in federal health expenditures is a serious problem. Expenditures are in turn frozen, reduced or de-indexed according to the mood of the finance minister and the cash requirements of his department. We no longer have a fixed funding formula approved by all the governments. Funding is unilaterally
and arbitrarily determined by the federal government, without any consideration for the real costs of the provincial programs.
This constant change in the funding level, which is always dropping, has become a real nightmare for those involved in the health industry. What is worse is that the finance minister does not seem to realize that he is no longer juggling only with figures now, but that he is playing with the health of the Canadian population.
Last February, in his latest budget, the finance minister decided to reduce once again health transfers to the provinces. In this area, Quebec stands to lose $650 million in 1996-97 and $1.9 billion in 1997-98. That must be part of the benefits of federalism. It is important to note that when a federal government member says that federalism is profitable, he means it is profitable for the federal government, but costly for the provinces which do not have as much leeway as they used to.
In the spring of 1995, the National Council of Welfare made these comments about the planned cuts to health care funding, and I quote: ``The measures announced in this budget would likely destroy a national social services system that took a whole generation to build''.
Here is what the British Columbia health minister said about these cuts, and I quote:
[English]
``Last February's budget which cut transfers to provinces for health has forced provinces to look at unpalatable cuts that threaten medicare''.
(1720)
[Translation]
If Canada's health minister was so concerned about the health care system in our country, he would have done what his colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce did and would have opposed his government's last budget attacking social programs. He would have stood up in cabinet where these decisions are made and would have set the people's pressing needs for quality health care in Canada against the finance minister's figures. The health minister could have suggested to the government to get the money from those who benefit from many tax shelters, starting with the Liberal Party's generous financial backers, and not forgetting of course the finance minister's own companies.
But this is not what he did. Today, he is proposing to us an old bill that was severely criticized by all stakeholders at second reading, during the first session of this 35th Parliament. A bill that is nothing but rehash, a bill that perpetuates the federal government's interference in health care, an area-we will never say it enough-under provincial jurisdiction.
Subclause 4(1) of the bill describes the powers, duties and functions of the minister while subclause 4(2) spells out what these functions encompass and deals with the protection of the people of Canada against risks to health and the spreading of diseases. Having seen where that got us with raw milk cheeses, we can easily imagine that on the strength of these provisions the federal government would not hesitate to meddle further in the administration of health care in Canada.
The bill before us is hypocritical enough to state, in clause 12, and I quote:
Nothing in this Act or the regulations authorizes the Minister or any officer or employee of the Department to exercise any jurisdiction or control over any health authority operating under the laws of any province.When provincial health funding is cut this drastically, there is direct interference in the operation of agencies operating under provincial authority, by reducing their ability to continue to offer a satisfactory level of services to the public.
The Bloc Quebecois condemns this bill, because it sanctions the interference of the federal government in areas of provincial jurisdiction. In the health field, Quebec has its priorities and must have the right to manage them independently, in accordance with the current Constitution. This bill does not talk about ensuring satisfactory and stable funding for health care. The minister has abdicated his responsibilities in this field and is taking his orders from the Minister of Finance.
This bill attacks the provinces to such an extent, without helping them to solve the pressing problems they face, that even the most ardent federalists have decided to fight the initiatives of the health minister. Ontario's Conservative health minister said on September 19 of this year that there should be opposition to the federal government's desire to dictate to the provinces its interpretation of the principles that should govern the health care system. That same day, Ralph Klein, the Conservative premier of Alberta, also condemn the federal government's inflexibility, with reference to the then minister.
In a joint communiqué, on the occasion of a meeting of health ministers, the provinces declared that the federal government's desire to take unilateral decisions with respect to health funding, the interpretation of standards, and the setting of arbitrary deadlines for the termination of consultations was certainly not helping to resolve the problem.
Because the federal government is not able to protect the public adequately against risks to health, and because its continual cuts constitute the main threat to the health of the people of Quebec and of Canada, the federal government should withdraw from the health field and transfer the corresponding fiscal resources to the provinces, allowing them to take over responsibility for this area with, at the very least, the same level of effectiveness as the federal government.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Call in the members.
(1725)
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Division on the motion is deferred until Tuesday, at 5.30 p.m.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in favour of Bill C-19. This is an important piece of legislation and marks a major advancement in the quest to reduce barriers to trade within Canada and to open up the domestic market to the freer flow of goods and services.
Bill C-19 is the result of a long process of consultation which has included many Canadians: people who are concerned aboutthe economic future of Canada; people who want to expandthe scope for employment and wealth creation for the benefit of allCanadians.
In the years since 1867 the Canadian economy has grown and evolved in ways never imagined by the original Fathers of Confederation. The federal government still has constitutional responsibility for trade and commerce but over time individual provinces have assumed prominent roles which have influenced economic growth and have set regulations for the conduct of trade and commerce at their levels. As a result of this, a variety of ad hoc measures have been introduced over the years.
We now have a system of federal, provincial and territorial trading arrangements and regulations which often conflict, which sometimes discriminate, and which can put Canadian businesses at a competitive disadvantage. Such barriers can cause the inefficient use of our economic resources and can limit the ability of our industries to take advantage of economies of scale and to maintain competitive market positions.
There are many examples of such impediments to trade in Canada. There are different professional and occupational standards in different jurisdictions which can work to limit the mobility of labour between provinces. Some provincial liquor boards have followed selective listing policies which have the effect of discriminating against products from outside their jurisdictions. There are different transportation regulations covering safety codes, inspection arrangements and vehicle standards which make it difficult for truckers to operate in different provincial markets.
Many local governments and other entities that have spent taxpayers' dollars practise procurement policies which give preference to local companies so that the ability to offer competitive sources of supply can be determined by geography and not by traditional marketplace measures such as price and quality.
Some jurisdictions seek to attract new investment by offering special incentive programs for industry development which can distort normal risk-reward equations in the investment marketplace. Regulations governing construction procedures and building standards can differ from one jurisdiction to the next and cause difficulties for construction companies and labour alike.
These are just some examples of barriers and impediments that can impact negatively on our ability to do business openly and freely in Canada. There are many many more. Thus we have in Canada a patchwork of regulations, standards and other barriers to interprovincial trade which have grown around us and which have become an unacceptable feature of the domestic marketplace.
The business community has been aware of the negative impact of this situation for some time. Our government as well as other governments have heard from many representatives of the private sector who have assessed the problems in the domestic trading environment and who have been pressuring us to make necessary changes to open up the system.
(1730 )
These people and many others, including colleagues at the provincial and territorial levels, have recognized that a new trading regime has to be established, one based on more open interprovincial trade, one that will not impede the movement of people and investment within the country and one that will give us a mechanism to allow for co-operative approaches to the resolution of domestic trade disputes.
The agreement on internal trade, which was negotiated by the committee of ministers responsible for internal trade and signed in July 1994 by the Prime Minister and all the other first ministers of this country, gives us the framework to create such a new regime. Bill C-19 puts in place the legislative changes that need to be made at the federal level in order that the agreement can be implemented and the process of change can continue.
With these changes, we will ensure that the framework for a new regime will be in place and that we can continue the work to remove barriers to interprovincial trade in goods and services as well as to reduce impediments to the movement of workers and capital between provinces. We will establish the forum for the resolution of individual trade disputes without resorting to the courts.
By passing this bill, the House will show leadership to other Canadians and will confirm the intent of the federal government to make the changes necessary to create a new trading regime within Canada, one that reflects the political and economic realities of the day.
As I mentioned earlier, the process leading up to this bill has been a long one. It has involved many people and it has considered many issues and perspectives, both national and regional.
Federal, provincial and territorial governments at both the ministerial and official levels have been extensively involved. It is important to note that political parties of all stripes and regional perspectives have been involved in the process. So have many sectors of the private sector, including business, labour and consumer organizations.
A notable aspect of the process has been the spirit of co-operation which has consistently characterized the negotiations. There has been a high degree of goodwill from all parties. There is a shared recognition that the domestic trading environment must be improved and that it is up to governments to meet this need head on.
The agreement represents a major step toward the shared objective of improving the domestic trading environment and eliminating the barriers to trade, investment and labour mobility. It gives us general rules that prevent governments from erecting new trade barriers and which require the reduction of existing ones in areas covered under the agreement. As well, it gives specific obligations in 10 economic sectors, streamlining of regulations and standards, a formal dispute resolution mechanism and a commitment to liberalize trade further through continuing negotiations.
This last point is important because the bill before the House does not signal the end of the process. It signals our support for a continuation of the process of domestic trade policy renewal and our commitment to make it work for all Canadians.
The committee of ministers of internal trade, which achieved the current agreement, is now constituted as a permanent body to carry on the work of domestic trade policy renewal. A secretariat has been set up to provide administrative and technical support to ministers and negotiators in this work.
A key aspect of the agreement, indeed, a key aspect of any trading agreement, is the method by which disputes that may arise under the agreement are to are to be resolved. While international trading agreements have useful lessons for us in Canada, none of their precedents was directly suitable. To meet the special needs of the Canadian situation, an approach was needed that would accommodate the federal-provincial system of power sharing. A dispute settling mechanism was needed that would deal with both general level compliance complaints, those based on the principles of free trade, as well as specific complaints from consumers and private business interests, those complaints that cannot be resolved by governments themselves.
(1735)
The challenge was to find solutions that would accommodate the desires of the provincial governments to retain the flexibility necessary to pursue their legitimate political and economic objectives under existing constitutional power sharing arrangements while at the same time providing a dispute settlement mechanism that would offer open access and cost efficient resolution without resorting to court action and enforceable implementation. This was the challenge and the agreement has given us a new model for handling trade disputes, a made in Canada model.
The agreement on internal trade sets out the framework for the new dispute resolution mechanism that is unique to the Canadian situation of federal and provincial power sharing and that provides for open access to the settlement process. The approach being followed commits all parties to the use of conciliation to address problems that may arise from the provisions of the agreement, including issues arising from the application of its principles, its rules and its individual sectoral agreements.
Issues are to be resolved in the first instance on a government to government basis. In the case of an issue or problem of concern to a private individual or business that governments cannot or will not deal with and where the private interest is not satisfied, the complaint can be raised directly with a dispute resolution panel.
This is an important feature. It means that individuals as well as governments can bring forward issues for consideration.
In other words, a private party that feels harmed by an alleged unfair trade practice or policy can bring his concerns forward whether or not the government under whose jurisdiction a question has arisen agrees that there is a reviewable question.
A defining principle of the internal trade agreement and of the dispute settlement process is an emphasis on open co-operation to solve problems. Disputing parties will be encouraged to make every attempt to arrive at a solution through consultation and conciliation.
If consultation fails, governments or governments on behalf of individuals or individuals directly can ask to have a matter raised before a panel. The panel will consider the facts and, if appropriate, make recommendations for changed policies or behaviour.
The underlying objective of the process is to promote changes in inconsistent behaviour and policies through recommendations and not by applying penalties or awarding damages. Concerns have been raised in some quarters that the federal government will be set up as the policeman of interprovincial trade under the provisions of Bill C-19. During committee hearings a few points of concern were raised on the language of the act with respect to the powers of the federal government under the act. These sections have been clarified and the bill that we now have for third reading reflects these changes.
It is simply not true that the federal government is seeking to act as a policeman nor will the federal government have the power to act unilaterally on matters concerning internal trade because of Bill C-19. The ministerial level committee on internal trade is the main body responsible for the implementation and operation of the agreement, including the resolution of disputes.
All governments which are party to the agreement, that is the federal, provincial and territorial governments, are members of that committee. At this time the committee is co-chaired by the Hon. James Downey, Minister of Industry for the Government of Manitoba and the federal Minister of Industry. They are co-chairs. They share the job. The office of the secretariat has been set up in Winnipeg and Mr. André Dimitrijevic, a former associate deputy minister of federal-provincial relations in Saskatchewan has been appointed as the head of the secretariat. His office will be responsible for administering the dispute resolution mechanism.
(1740)
A number of working groups have been or will be formed to assess and report annually on the effects of the agreement on each province and territory. These working groups will continue to monitor the domestic trading environment and will make recommendations as appropriate.
This is a broad based agreement. It includes a broad based dispute settlement process. It includes the federal, provincial and territorial governments and it responds to the very real concerns which have been brought forward by representatives of all parts of Canadian society.
The agreement represents a significant milestone in the evolution of Canadian economic development. It represents an important step in the process of creating a more open and competitive market. It is a flexible agreement and it provides the framework to deal with special situations or changing priorities.
At their annual meeting last year, the provincial premiers reaffirmed their commitment to the objective of reducing and eliminating barriers to the free movement of persons, goods, services and investment among the provinces and territories. The premiers want to continue the process of trade renewal and so does this government. Internal trade remains an important priority, as was most recently reaffirmed in the speech from the throne.
The passage of Bill C-19 will provide the foundation for a more competitive domestic marketplace. It will complement the work of the Prime Minister and other first ministers who have been actively involved with the highly successful Team Canada approach, seeking to broaden the market for Canadian goods and services in export markets. We are part of a global economy and we have to compete in the competitive international environment.
Internal barriers to trade inhibit our ability to compete internationally. We may not be able to control every factor in the international marketplace, but we can act on the problems that arise within our borders.
Bill C-19 does that. In the spirit of co-operation which has brought us this far in dealing with the matter of improving the environment for doing business within Canada, I am pleased to have the opportunity to express my support for this legislation. I urge other members of the House to support it as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-19, an act to implement the Agreement on Internal Trade.
To those of us in Quebec, this bill is both very significant and very encouraging. For a number of years, I would say more than ten even, we have been discussing the possibility of freeing trade among Canada's provinces. Today, we are proud to see that the government has acted on it.
It is vital to harmonizing trade relations, and I will explain in detail a little later on why we agree with harmonizing trade relations among the provinces. We freed trade with the United States first, before we freed trade among the provinces. You can imagine how important it was to do so.
It is also important to have a dispute resolution mechanism. We find this mechanism quite acceptable, except as we mentioned at the bill's earlier stages, and as we discussed with Quebec officials, it is a bit odd in our free trade agreement with the United States that the parties-Canada and the U.S.-have to decide as the very last thing how a dispute between firms or sectors of the economy is to be resolved.
(1745)
In the end, the federal government will decide by order in council where disputes will be settled. In other words, it will unilaterally decide what is right and what is not.
This is why we, together with my colleague who was then the industry critic, had suggested a two day debate in the House of Commons on the importance of dispute settlement. We believe, as I said earlier, that some sectors might be more affected in some provinces than in others and that if a dispute was settled by order in council, it could be unfair at times to economic sectors which might be in a more favourable position in one province than in others.
This is why we believe that settling a dispute by order in council might be harmful to certain economic sectors and to certain provinces, especially the small ones.
Interprovincial free trade is of the utmost importance. Already, trade in goods and services in Canada and in Quebec represents 16 per cent of the gross domestic product of Quebec, for instance. It is quite important for Quebec to have free competition with the rest of Canada.
For instance, we can say products that Quebec sells in the rest of Canada represent $23.3 billion. The goods we purchase from other provinces represent $19 billion. That means we sell a little more in the other provinces than we buy from them.
However, we sell $11 billion in services to the other provinces, and we buy $14 billion from them. We buy about $3 billion more in services than we sell. So, if we look at the total average, what we sell and what we buy is about equal.
If the government had not acted by liberalizing trade between the provinces, we could see that Quebec would have further developed its trade with the United States. We will continue to do so with the United States because, particularly in Quebec, we have an extraordinary market with the cities of New York, Boston and Buffalo, in the United States, and with Toronto, in Canada. We have a tremendous market. In a radius of about 1,000 kilometres, there are almost 100 million consumers.
For Quebec, it is very beneficial to work at the shortest distance possible. We have an extraordinary market. New York and Boston, the northeastern United States, is the richest region in the world; it is where consumers buy the most. That is also where the business culture is the most like ours, so that it is much easier for us to do business in this radius. It requires much less effort, much less research on the human behaviour level, on the cultural level, etc. It is much simpler. Quebec will pursue its efforts to develop these markets, which have become much easier to break into. The figures I just gave you are based on the year 1994.
For all these reasons, our ultimate goal is to achieve Quebec sovereignty and negotiate an economic partnership with the rest of Canada. The government is to be thanked for this initiative. It is a step in the right direction. As we proposed during the referendum, we want to negotiate an economic partnership with the rest of Canada. What we have done, what we are doing today is a step forward that will help us achieve our goals when Quebec becomes sovereign. In this regard, I think we have just taken an extraordinary step.
There are other reasons, for example the advantage of liberalizing trade with the other provinces and the U.S. The economy is changing and will change even more dramatically in the future. We face an extraordinary, an exciting challenge in the coming years. The new ways of communicating, high technology, robotics, computers, the electronic highway are all transforming the dynamics of the economy.
(1750)
That is why borders should disappear, so that everyone can benefit from their own intellectual and technical resources. I would like to say a few words on this, if I have the time.
I will deal mainly with our economy of the past 50 years-there is no need to go back to ancient history-for those sceptics who think that free competition and free trade at the international level are bad for us.
For those sceptics, I would like to go over the economy of the past and that of the future. In my days as a Conservative member, I took a strong stand for free trade with the United States. I worked very hard to make it happen. That is why, thinking back on all the speeches we made, the studies we commissioned and the evidence we heard, I am convinced that free trade is a good thing.
For the benefit of those who remain sceptical, I will raise the issue of competition. Let us not forget that, in the old days, our main markets were wood, fur and iron. We also had a very domestic farm industry. We raised our livestock to meet our immediate needs. We also had coal, petroleum, in very limited supplies, and all naturally renewable commodities, which ensured our survival locally.
When we had plentiful supplies of natural products such as coal, iron, wood and so on, we sold some and used some. Revenues were relatively stable. In the old days, the economy was relatively stable because it was driven for the most part by natural resources.
Wood was used to build houses and to heat them, livestock was killed for its meat and cows gave milk. All this makes for a very local economy. To keep warm, people burned wood; that is quite simple. They did not have much need for trading with Ontario or the U.S. to feed themselves, heat their homes and what not. Theirs was a strictly local economy. We had an enormous wealth, particularly in Quebec, but also in the other provinces, of materials of all sorts.
In a way, it was quite important to take protective measures. In those days, Canadians were very afraid of having their market invaded by the Americans or the Europeans, of anything that might destabilize their economy. It was therefore important that barriers be erected to protect our small local economy.
We tended to be protectionists. Barriers were erected. Customs tariffs and tariffs of all sorts were imposed to prevent our economy from being disturbed in any way. For decades, I would even go as far as to say centuries, our economy remained virtually unchanged. We were undoubtedly protectionists, and probably rightly so.
As far as national and international markets is concerned, as I said earlier, we did not really need to rely on other countries to provide for our needs.
(1755)
Our multinationals set up mainly in countries where natural resources were vast and where labour was cheap. Products were made, finished and then sold. This is how the economy and the multinationals used to work. These businesses would go in countries where they could produce at a low cost, thanks to the natural resources and cheap labour available.
In the sixties, seventies and eighties, governments would get involved when they realized that a business was experiencing financial troubles or productivity problems, among others, and they would subsidize these companies. It was easy for companies to get subsidies. A lot of money was spent to subsidize businesses. I clearly remember, and so do other members who take an interest in the economy, that enormous amounts of money were used to subsidize companies, until governments realized that they were just wasting our money.
Generally speaking, when companies were in financial difficulty, it was because they had not properly analyzed future markets, changes affecting labour and technology, automation, and all sorts of new ways of doing things. This was the main reason these companies had problems and were helped out by governments, which were essentially wasting money. Indeed, even though they were subsidized, these companies still ended up shutting down.
They were subsidized because they were located in remote areas. However, they were not suitable for the region, sometimes because the natural resources were no longer as abundant as when they had first settled there. In any case, this resulted in a lot of money being wasted.
Let us now look at the current economy. To those who are sceptical and who believe that free trade is something bad which will hurt us, let me say that I think just the opposite, and I have for several years now. The economy in which we live, and in which we will live in the years to come, is based on ideas rather than on natural resources.
Mental competence will be very important. In Quebec in particular, we have tremendous intellectual competence, and young people graduating from our schools, colleges and universities are outstanding. With regard to software development, in particular, we see that we are among the best in the world. The economy of the future will be based a lot more on mental competence than on natural resources, as used to be the case. The information highway is a case in point. There is much talk about it now.
People with the capacity to develop software and to use it for promotion, sale or information, whether through the Internet or other means of communications, will be in the forefront and will do well. This economy will be based on ideas, on mental competence.
(1800)
Thanks to this new way of doing business with ideas and mental competence, the economy will change a lot more rapidly. We will witness an economic revolution that could be considered astounding by some, but which I would see instead as a particularly exciting new development. As you know, ideas evolve a lot faster than coal or iron plants. Ideas change, evolve at a rapid pace.
Previously, the economy was based on natural resources like coal and iron. We could rely on our resources, we had plenty of them for 50 or 100 years. We lived off them, we had only to extract and sell them, it was not complicated.
Tomorrow's economy will be much more flexible and will move much faster. It will change more rapidly, and I think it will be very exciting for young people.
Help from governments will be different too. Governments will help companies to better communicate and sell their products, get international information and international market intelligence, and assess world markets. Government help will also target certain sectors of the economy.
Small businesses may need information, for example. It will be important for the government to have experts throughout the world that can use Internet to let that small business acquire some knowledge of what the culture is like in India, of what the lifestyle of the Indians, the Japanese or the Chinese is like, and on how they go about purchasing goods or services. So the government will
have an important role to play in conveying to small businesses the information they require in order to develop.
This is the economy of the future, and it is important to realize it. I think we do, but governments will have to be flexible. That is why Quebec is looking for more autonomy. We want to be flexible in order to move quickly. We think that federalism, with its eleven governments, is doomed to stagnation. It stifles development. The government is always slow to move and takes a lot of time to react. That is why we advocate sovereignty with an economic and political partnership with the rest of Canada. In order to expand, we need to be able to react more quickly and to be more efficient as a government in our support for this new approach.
I mentioned earlier that more accessible markets will mean a lot more transfers, not only of products but also of skills. Transfers of skills do not cost much in transportation fees. It can be done through computers. It will be done in the future through the Internet and more user friendly communication services.
We are told that we will soon be able to contact anyone in the world without having to make long distance calls. We will not have to call long distance to talk to someone in Japan or in China in the near future, in just a few years from now. It means we will be able to exchange ideas and work on research or other projets with experts from anywhere in the world.
This is why free trade with the United States, with the provinces and with other large markets is so interesting. It will allow us to be more efficient. Our productivity will increase and who will benefit in the end? The consumer.
We will have good high-quality products. We will definitely be able to increase the standard of living of our citizens. It can take us far, but I just wanted to show that an opening onto the world, with freer trade and increased competitiveness, should help to improve our productivity. In turn, it should improve our products and result in a higher standard of living for consumers and the general public.
(1805)
We will have better and nicer clothes. We will have nicer automobiles and television sets with interactive programming. We will be able to afford a lot of things. We need high technology, but, in some cases, it can cost a lot of money.
When we were negotiating free trade with the United States, some major international investors told us: ``We need large markets to justify our investments''. People stopped investing in Canada for two main reasons. First, they told us: ``The market is not big enough to justify our investments. Besides, Canada's debt is too high and we will have to pay for it. It will be too expensive and, in the end, it will not be profitable to invest in Canada''.
High technology has its advantages, but it can sometimes be expensive. It costs a lot of money to invent a high technology product, which means that large investments are required, and you need markets to make these investments profitable. Not only did Canada have a very small market of about 25 million people, but companies were not sure they would be able to sell their products in other provinces. So you can imagine how restricted our market was. Very few people were interested in investing in Canada because the market was too small to justify the investment. Consequently, international investors in high technology went to Europe, to the United States, to Japan and other countries.
For these reasons, it was really necessary to secure free trade with the United States. It was hard because Quebec was almost the only province in favour of free trade with the United States. We, Quebecers, worked very hard because we believed in free trade with the United States. There was unanimity in Quebec between the Liberal Party, the Parti Quebecois and a majority of Conservative members at the time. We worked real hard, and it is with the help of Quebecers that we succeeded in signing a free-trade agreement with the United States.
Except for Mr. Turner, the Liberal Party at the time was against free trade with the United States. Only Mr. Turner, the former Prime Minister, was in favour of free trade. He came to the House to make a speech in support of free trade. He contradicted the present Prime Minister, who was against it.
Mrs. Brushett: You are a wise man.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Yes, absolutely.
So, Mr. Turner was surely a very intelligent man. He had understood. He had insight. Unfortunately, his party was against it and decided to wage a war to the finish. We had to work for hours.
I remember making a speech at about 11.40 p.m. in December, just before Christmas, because we had to adopt the free trade agreement before the end of the year, so that both countries could ratify it. So, we made long speeches until the very end because the Liberals, if they did not hinder us, tried to gain time. They used every trick of parliamentary procedure to try to gain time until the very end, until we succeeded in having the agreement adopted.
So it all happened thanks to Quebecers, to the Government of Quebec, to its members and to the members of the Quebec wing of the Conservative Party. There was about sixty of us at that time, and we managed to convince the rest of Canada that free trade was a good thing.
Today the Liberals are in favour of free trade. They won the election, so they do not need to oppose free trade any more. They used the free trade issue to win the election. Now they support free trade.
I am also pleased to see today that the Liberals have decided to encourage free trade between the provinces. I totally agree with that, and this is why I support this bill.
As I said earlier, this bill will simplify internal trade. I also mentioned earlier that this is in line with the sovereignist project that we still have and that we will not forget about because we still believe in it, unless the Canadian government decides to make changes to the Constitution.
(1810)
What we are proposing is a close, controlled economic partnership. As I mentioned earlier, this is a good start. It will allow us to have free trade, which is necessary.
Now that we will have free trade with the provinces, we, in Quebec, are very aware that we will have to train our workers better. Therefore, I urge the federal government again to accept to transfer to Quebec the responsibility for manpower training. This is very important for us. It is not up to the federal government to make decisions about manpower training; it is a provincial responsibility. This is my twelfth year as a member of Parliament, and for twelve years we have been begging the federal government to give manpower training back to the provinces. This is a very important issue for us.
We can see that there is a lot of waste. There is a waste of time and energy, and still people are not being properly trained. The effectiveness of the federal government's manpower training is rated at about 25 per cent. Imagine, billions of dollars spent and it is only 25 per cent effective.
This is also true for Ontario and for British Columbia. Manpower training should be given by provincial institutions. It is the provinces who run educational institutions. Why does the federal government have to buy courses from Quebec institutions? Often, they have rules that do not correspond to those of our school boards or of the provinces' educational institutions.
It would be much easier to co-ordinate manpower training if it were controlled by the provinces, if the money went directly to the provinces so that they could provide satisfactory training. We have colleges that adapt to the needs of businesses and that design very specialized programs corresponding to sectors of economic activity. They take the businesses in a particular sector and create specialized classes in order to provide people with very specific training to meet very specific needs.
Courses are given specifically to meet the needs of these businesses, but in many cases the federal government horns in. I will give the House an example: someone who is unemployed wants to take a 10 month course, starting in May and ending 10 months later. Since he is unemployed, he is not entitled to any holiday time during his unemployment, so he cannot take the course, because the school boards close down for two months in Quebec. This is crazy, as well as unacceptable. I find such things both scandalous and disgusting.
A lot of people come to see us in our offices to tell us things like this: ``It makes no sense, I am eligible to take a course but I cannot because it starts in the spring and ends in late fall''. Since the teaching criteria are not the same for the school boards and for unemployment insurance, people end up unable to take a course. That is why I find it scandalous that money is wasted and people with ability are also wasted. They often give up and go back home and on to welfare, living off the government.
(1815)
I am begging the government to act promptly. In looking at my government colleagues close to me, I am convinced that they understand my message very well. I am not being aggressive, merely pointing out what is nothing more than common sense.
I trust that the Liberal members making up the present government will heed this message and make it possible for there to be greater efficiency and for the people working in our businesses to be better trained and therefore more productive, turning out better products. With better products, we will be able to compete internationally. Such is the purpose of manpower training.
That is why we are working very hard in Quebec, to have more efficient businesses. It would be a serious mistake not to do so. There will be no point in moaning about it when we are flooded with products from other countries, creating unemployment and welfare dependency. Do we want to become a banana republic, an impoverished state, or do we want to move on into this new economic era? In this new economic era, high technology will take the place of natural resources.
This is why training and intellectual skills are essential for this new economy we will be experiencing in the years to come.
Once again, I am begging the government, and the government members in particular, since they form that government. Often MPs do not dare speak out, but it is not always necessary to vote against one's government in order to have one's ideas noticed. I believe we should work very hard inside our respective caususes. I know there are excellent Liberal members who understand what I have just said, and I am convinced that with time they will come to understand, as they finally did and accepted the free trade agreement with the United States. It is normal. People evolve slowly.
There are still people in Quebec who are not sovereignists. I say to them that some people take more time than others to understand. It is the same thing. There were some people who had not understood that free trade was a good thing. Today, people know
that free trade is a good thing, at least in Quebec because we export much more to the United States than we import.
We realize that free trade is a good thing. Yet, at first, some Liberals believed that it was not. You cannot blame people. They take time to change. As I have just said, some take longer than others to understand. It depends where you come from, on your education and on where you live. This is all perfectly acceptable, and I do not want to point the finger at anyone.
There is one thing, however. We live in an age of high technology and major communications, and we are going to have to meet international competition. It is an extraordinary challenge. One that will be very exciting. I am sure the years to come will be exciting, but we must make sure that our people receive the intellectual training to meet the challenge.
I and the other members of the Bloc support this bill, except, and I repeat, the part on the resolution of disputes. On the whole, we agree with the formula, except at the end, where it provides that the federal government may unilaterally decide who is right and who is wrong by order.
Once again, this could harm certain provinces with very pronounced sectors of economic activity. I will give Alberta as an example.
(1820)
Alberta has a number of fairly major economic sectors, including oil, beef and wheat. These are the major ones; I might even say the only ones. If a dispute were to arise with Quebec or Ontario in one of these areas, and the federal government unilaterally resolved the dispute by order, Alberta's economy could suffer significantly. It is a possibility.
Quebec has one really major sector: hydroelectric power. Should there be a dispute over power with no solution found and should the government unilaterally decide by order in the end to promote uranium or atomic energy over Quebec's energy, Quebec could suffer hugely. It is for these reasons that to give sole power to the federal government to resolve a dispute by order-in-council could adversely affect an important economic sector in Quebec as it could adversely affect an important economic sector in Alberta, in New Brunswick or elsewhere. In this sense, we think it is dangerous and we are opposed to it.
We would have preferred a two-day debate, a public debate in the House of Commons, so that members concerned, who feel their rights or those of their province, their region or a sector of their province are being abused, can publicly inform the people of these risks by their comments.
We all know that the ability to speak out publicly often confers an extraordinary power. Otherwise, things are done on the sly, often in secret. That is why we live in a democratic system, to be able to speak out publicly. It is a shame we cannot speak out freely and publicly instead of ruling by order-in-council. It should be possible to debate the matter, people should be able to express their views. Maybe then, the way we see things could change radically.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about the internal trade agreement. I will talk about why I believe free trade agreements are good both internationally and internally within Canada. I will follow that with a brief analysis of what the bill does and does not do as it reflects on internal trade in Canada. I will detail some specifics about why the Reform Party has difficulty supporting the bill. I will wrap up my speech by specifically talking about the energy chapter, or the missing energy chapter, the one we have been promised repeatedly over the last couple of years which we are still waiting to see come to fruition.
I would like to detail why the internal trade agreement is so valuable to the people of Quebec as well as to all Canadians. I would like the separatists in Quebec to consider the idea that the bringing down of interprovincial trade barriers presupposes that we have provinces around which there are barriers. There is no guarantee that if a province separates from Canada the move for free trade within our borders will continue.
Some of the benefits which Quebec now receives within the Canadian Confederation are not a sure thing if it goes its way. NAFTA, GATT and the internal trade agreements all suddenly become up in the air for the province, then the country of the Quebec. I urge them as they consider their options in the years to come that they keep that in mind.
(1825)
For instance, Quebec exported more to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in 1989 than to any country in Europe, including France. Quebec sold as much to Ontario as it did to the United States. That is important. Quebec has a huge trade within Canada and the separatists put that at risk when they start talking about separation. It is no wonder the economy of Montreal and all of Quebec is in turmoil right now as they consider their options.
The business people in Quebec know the truth. The truth is Canada is good for Quebec and they should know that. To start tossing around the idea that they could just go their own way, everything would be copacetic and not to worry about it, is not telling the truth to the people within their own borders. Quebec benefits from trade within Canada. I will read a couple of statistics about how much benefit it is for some of the provinces.
It is interesting that only 23 per cent of British Columbia's total exports go interprovincially. In B.C. 76 to 77 per cent of its exports
go internationally. We in British Columbia are not totally dependent on the internal trade agreement and the freedom it would allow although obviously it is a good thing for all Canadians. Most of our product in B.C. is exported to other countries.
Take some of the other provinces. In Quebec 51 per cent of its total exports go to other provinces. The majority of its exports go to provinces, not to other countries, not to Europe, not to the emerging Asian markets. Most of its trade is internal trade. If those in the Bloc Quebecois put their thinking caps on, they would realize they are not doing any favours to their constituents by proposing the breakup of Canada when more than half of Quebec's trade goes to other provinces.
Alberta exports 61 per cent of its trade to other provinces. Alberta understands the importance of the internal free trade agreement and of being part of Canada.
Whether we are talking about dairy products, manufactured goods or whatever, Quebec benefits from being part of Canada. The separatists should toss out this idea of leaving Canada which is harming not only Quebec's business prospects but is also creating that political uncertainty which is hurting the rest of the country. I hope we will hear more talk that they are looking forward to acceptable change from Canada. Many of us are looking for acceptable attitudes from the Bloc Quebecois too.
We would like to see an acceptance that this is a mutually beneficial thing. Quebec and Canada together is the way we should have it. Read the statistics. We are not going to be held hostage on this. We hold some pretty good cards in this game and we are not about to hand over the whole deck to those who say they want to take their ball and go home. I urge them to reconsider their political agenda which I think is harming not only Quebec but also the rest of Canada.
While Ontario is Quebec's most important trading partner within Canada, Quebec ran a deficit in its trade with Ontario and its surplus came from trade with more distant provinces. In other words when we think of trade it is not just Ontario trade; Quebec trades with all the provinces in big numbers. If we were to add up all the numbers that all the provinces trade, in fact as much trade goes on interprovincially as goes on with the rest of the world. Interprovincial trade is key.
The Reform Party campaigned in the election in favour of the free trade agreement. We made no bones about it. We said we anticipated that the world was going to go toward a rules based free trade economy and that we had best get on the bandwagon because that bandwagon was heading out of town. The best way to ensure prosperity for Canadians was to ensure that we were on the free trade bandwagon.
(1830 )
We said free trade should move ahead. Reform Party members said we would sign the NAFTA and the GATT if it came to that. We said that if 150 countries, give or take, in the rest of the world want to sign a free trade agreement based on a rules base trade agreement, we were to be one of the 150 because trade, export-import, is the future of the country.
We also said during the campaign that one thing which could make free trade work for Canada, although it has not always worked for Canada, is to resolve the internal trade barriers first. There are $6.5 billion of internal trade barriers within Canada. Everything from milk to beer costs Canadians more because of internal trade barriers. It is not right. If we are thinking of exporting to the world, at the very least we should be able to ensure there is also the right to export within the country.
Let me read where this agreement is taking us. What was the situation before this agreement came into force? Why was the Reform Party so adamant about one particular power which should be strengthened by the federal government? Everybody says the Reform Party wants to dismember the federal government. There are many areas where it should be out of business. One area it should strengthen is the right to strike down internal trade barriers. Section 121 of the BNA act states, and has always been the case: ``All articles of growth, produce or manufacture of any one of the provinces shall be admitted free into each of the other provinces''. Those are the rules around which somehow the federal government has allowed $6.5 billion in trade barriers to be erected between all provinces.
We have gone over this already somewhat, but we find ourselves in a situation in which transportation companies say it is easier to transport goods north and south across the border than it is interprovincially. Stocking requirements for shelves state certain products can be more visible or displayed more attractively on a shelf than others. Interprovincial trade barriers have arisen to the tune of $6.5 billion, even though the BNA states all provinces shall be permitted free access into each of the other provinces. It cannot be more clear than that.
The federal government has a responsibility and a legal right to ensure that we have free access between provinces. We do not need a better right than that. It is true free trade when there is the right for growth, produce and manufacture from any of the provinces to be admitted freely between provinces. What is needed is a federal government with the guts to do something about it.
It should not be done after the NAFTA, after the GATT. We are still trying to get this internal trade agreement right. Meanwhile the band wagon is well out of town and the free trade agreement is
gone. It is no wonder some people say international free trade agreements have not been as good for Canada as they couldhave been.
I would still argue they had to go ahead. However, federal governments past and present should have moved quicker and with more vigour on the idea of striking down internal trade barriers within our own country. If free trade had begun at home, people would have accepted it, seen the benefits and been far more accepting of the NAFTA and GATT that followed.
I have to mention specifically what happened during the campaign when many dairy farmers in my riding were promised by the Liberal government that it would not sign the GATT without a strengthened and clarified article 11.2(c). I heard Liberal candidates swear they would lie down on the railroad tracks to stop the deal. They would resign from caucus, which given today's activities might have been a good first step. They said they would never sign the agreement unless article 11.2(c), dairy quotas and tariffication, were strengthened and clarified.
The government did not even have time to read that document before it signed it. It was signed knowing full well that during the campaign it would sign. It was signed with out any strengthening, without any clarification. It went immediately to tariffication.
(1835 )
It was one of those promises that caused a lot of Liberals to get red under the collar during the campaign. They did not follow through on that to the dairy farmers in my area. The truth in advertising council should look into that.
There were some wild promises, including the Deputy Prime Minister's promises on the GST, including free votes in the House of Commons, including-I do not want to pick on your position, Madam Speaker-the promise from the red book that they would have deputy speakers from the opposition parties in the Chair. What happened to all the promises?
The red book has gone from the non-fiction section of the library and is now firmly ensconced in the fiction section of the library. I saw someone walking out of here a while ago with a red book. The sucker is only half as thick as it used to be. They are tearing pages out of it as they walk, trying to make sure people do not get a good look at it. It will be interesting how the promises part of this develops.
I remind people watching, specifically those in my riding, that on that article in the GATT there was enough misleading information from the Liberals to gag a dairy cow in my riding.
What does this provincial trade agreement actually move toward? We used to have total free trade. We had free trade on everything that was produced, grown or manufactured, which basically covers it. What does article 101 of this provincial trade agreement state? I would think the government might want a strengthened article on that. The article states the objective of the agreement is to reduce and eliminate to the extent possible barriers to the free movement of goods and services.
Notice the transition here is not a positive one. We went from free trade in anything grown, produced or manufactured to free trade wherever possible according to the government. Is this an improvement? This is not an improvement. This is not an improved internal trade agreement.
What does ``to the extent possible'' mean? Does it mean that when a separatist government says a barrier cannot come down it must stay up? Does it mean that if someone gets a lobby group or a special interest group that might be funded by the government to aggressively lobby the government, the barrier has to stay up? What does it mean? No one knows for sure because it is ``to the extent possible'' that the government will remove internal barriers. That is not good enough. It is one of the powers which the Reform Party has consistently said should be strengthened by the federal government.
We have said much can be realigned in the federal-provincial scheme. If the provinces think they can do a better job, that they can handle it better, that they have the resources and they want to look after a lot of what is currently done by the federal government, we say more power to them, have a nice day, let us do it.
However, one of the powers the federal government needs to retain if it is to have a union from coast to coast is the right to strike down internal trade barriers. It cannot hand that over to the provinces. If it strikes down the economic activity between provinces, divisions will be created which create political divisiveness, interprovincial squabbles, business fights, uncompetitiveness, cost to consumers and cost to taxpayers. It is not acceptable to allow people, businesses or provinces to erect trade barriers within our country when we are looking for trade barriers to come down around the world.
This legislation is a step in the wrong direction. A promise was made in March 1994 just after the first federal budget. The industry minister stated the federal government is committed to working toward an agreement which is clear and concise, has a set of rules that will eliminate protective measures, and includes an effective and enforceable dispute settlement mechanism.
This agreement does not do that. If it did all of that I would say let us go for it, let us give it a whirl and see if it will work. There are entire areas untouched by this agreement. There are certain agricultural products untouched. Certain government procurement and regional development tools are untouched.
(1840 )
The energy chapter is not even there. The government is asking us to sign something that is not even there. There are about 14 chapters in this agreement. The energy chapter is a blank page. That would be bad enough except the government said the blank page would be filled in July 1995. July came and went and there was no page. It is a document that we need on the energy sector, one of the most important sectors of this agreement. September rolled around. September 1995 was when it would happen but in September 1995 the agreement was blank again.
There is no agreement on energy. We are being asked by the government to support an internal trade agreement in which at least in the area I am critiquing the chapter is non-existent. There is nothing there. It is a blank page.
We are being asked: ``Trust me. I will sign it later and we will negotiate something. Just give me the power now''. That is not good enough. Unfortunately, this deal of signing agreements and negotiating something later is typical of this government. It asked us to do that on the Yukon land claims settlement. It asked us to do it on the internal trade agreements. The government has asked us to entrust it to do something through order in council on many bills where it says: ``We are not sure what it means. We do not know when it will come into force. We do not know how we will do it but let us pass it''.
I say let us not pass it. Let us pass agreements and bills in this House which are complete. If the government needs more time to complete the bill, by all means take some time but do not ask us to approve bills in this House which are not full and complete. With this internal trade agreement that is a problem.
I will talk specifically on the energy chapter. This is the chapter which I find the fact that it is not filled out paints the picture for how effective this agreement is going to be. If we do not have a chapter on energy I would argue we do not have an internal trade agreement.
Agriculture is missing too. I guess it will be internal trade on widgets and foo-foos but that is not good enough. We need internal free trade within this country and we need it on the two most important products in the country, at least agriculture and energy. If the government cannot get an agreement on them, then it should withdraw the bill until the negotiations are complete. When negotiations are complete and the government has an agreement to present to the House of Commons, then we will vote on it. We have to vote no if there is no agreement in place because we will not give the government permission to write a blank cheque.
I mentioned that the chapter covering energy was supposed to be completed in July 1995. Then it was supposed to be completed in September 1995. That deadline also came and went. Now the officials are working on yet another draft of the energy sector chapter. The council of energy ministers promises again that August of this year is when the energy sector chapter is going to be completed. It is going to be completed almost for sure a year or so late.
What are we led to believe about this chapter and about this agreement? History tells us that politics will get in the way of common sense again, that the energy chapter may well go unwritten again. There has already been one written that they cannot agree with but it will probably go unwritten, unendorsed one more time.
I am afraid that sums up the progress to date of the energy ministers on this important matter. The blank page is rather symbolic of the entire agreement. It just shows again that the government cannot come through with its promise on internal trade and it is asking us to trust it to come up with something in the future.
I for one am not prepared to do that and I am surprised the Liberal members are prepared to do that. I would think they would say to their minister: ``Let us wait until we get the complete document''. It is unbelievable. For example when buying a car suppose I say: ``I will sign the contract to buy the car. I see it has no wheels on it but I will buy it. Sometime when you think you want to fill out the contract about when I get the wheels, let us talk. I will be happy to do it''. Nobody signs contracts like that.
(1845 )
In essence this bill is a contract between the provinces and between the federal government and the provinces and between the Canadian people by inference and all the provinces. The deal being signed is just not there and I am not prepared to do that. The Liberal backbenchers, at the very least, should not be prepared to do it either.
I mentioned the size of interprovincial trade and how important it is. It is critically important for the country that this is done correctly. I do not want to belabour the whole thing, but I can give members a list of how many agreements we have had. Somebody mentioned being here for 12 years. We had the Macdonald commission which recommended the elimination of trade barriers in 1984. In 1987 the committee of ministers on internal trade said that we had to get rid of internal trade barriers. In 1989 a memorandum of agreement stated we had to get rid of them. The maritimes then signed a memorandum of agreement. In 1991 six governments tried to get rid of an interprovincial agreement on beer marketing practices. That is how specific we are in this country. Six governments tried to get together to try to decide how to put a beer on the shelf. They come to sort of an agreement but one still cannot sell beer interprovincially unless one has a brewery in every province.
We come to the intergovernmental agreement on government procurement but that is also a difficult one to enforce. This goes on and on. In 1992, 1993 and 1994 the ministers backed away from completely eliminating internal trade barriers. There are about 11 sectors that they cannot solve yet they are now coming to us and asking approval for it.
I would like to wrap this up by saying that there is a long history in this country of promising one thing on the internal trade agreements and delivering nothing on the other.
We have a case in point which we have just gone through. I hope that sometime during discussions on this bill the new member for Labrador will get to his feet and talk about the energy chapter, the missing chapter, that should go into this agreement. I would like that member to say that the people of Labrador are sick and tired of the fact there is no energy chapter in this internal trade agreement. I hope that he will stand up and say: ``I am not satisfied with the way Labrador has been treated over the years on the internal trade issue. I am not satisfied with the fact that Labrador does not have access to the hydro lines in Quebec if it wants to build the lower Churchill. We are not satisfied in Labrador with the fact that they take our tax dollars and we do not even have a gravel road that we can drive on''.
I hope the member stands up and says: ``The money that we could have made if we had a proper internal trade agreement in place would look after the entire transfer payments to my province''. If the people in Labrador had a decent internal trade agreement they would not even need transfer payments from the federal government.
I hope that member from Labrador has the guts to stand up in the House of Commons and say that he is sick and tired of the fact that Labrador has been shafted and shafted again when it comes to an agreement.
Quebec has consistently refused to allow Labrador to build lines in Quebec. Furthermore, Quebec has consistently refused to allow Labrador to wheel power through its existing power grid. Instead it is forced to sell that power to Quebec at ridiculous 1969 prices to be resold to the Americans to the tune of $800 million to $1 billion a year.
The people of Labrador, with some justification, are sick and tired of that. I hope the new member for Labrador has the gumption to stand up and say that the government had better get it right on internal trade. He had better tell the minister that he is not going to be satisfied with the namby-pamby promises that some day in the future Labrador will be able to benefit from its own power sources.
I would hope that he would stand up and say: ``This has gone on long enough. You have put Labrador in a catch-22 position''. Labrador has to find a contract before it will be allowed to build power lines but it cannot build power lines until it gets the contract. They whipsaw Labrador back and forth.
By the way, Madam Speaker, the Reform Party went from 0 per cent to 30 per cent of the vote in the last byelection. I hope that the new member for Labrador is paying attention. There is within Labrador a separatist movement now. They have elected an independent MLA to sit in their own legislature. The reason for this is because they have been shafted. They are sick and tired of it. They do not want to leave Canada but they are tired of being fed pabulum and lies by the federal government. They are tired of being fed pabulum and lies even by their own provincial government. Both are Liberal governments by the way. They are tired of being beholden to another part of the country or to other Canadians when they should be and have the right to be independent.
I call on the government, when it writes this energy chapter, to then bring this internal trade agreement back to the House for ratification. When it writes the energy chapter it should include Labrador's concerns. You can bet your bottom dollar the reason the government cannot get an energy agreement right now is that Quebec will not sign and agree to binding arbitration because Quebec is afraid of what Labrador is going to get.
I would urge the member for Labrador to do his homework, study this and not to support this bill until that is fixed. Labrador deserves more.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It being6.50 p.m. the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 6.50 p.m.)