Debates of Nov. 19th, 1998

Supply

[An hon. member]

You made the cuts.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Members opposite would look for the simplistic answer to that. The fact is that Mr. Harris cut taxes 30%. To pay for his tax cut he unilaterally cut money to health care in the province of Ontario. The people in Ontario are not stupid. They understand that the provincial government—

[An hon. member]

The one from Mississauga is no brain surgeon.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

I never claimed to be a brain surgeon. That coming from the Reform Party, I am not sure that a surgeon would even be needed. One might have trouble finding it. The hon. whip can rest assured that I have some points I wish to make about the Reform Party's position and on the fact that it just flips and flops depending on what happens to be in the newspaper.

I believe the entire research department of the Reform Party consists of the Globe and Mail , the Toronto Star and maybe one or two papers from out west from where Reform members all hail. They read the paper in the morning, find out what the issues are and then stand up in question period and say to spend more money and cut taxes. That is all they want to do.

The reality is that this government in being a responsible federal government understands the dynamics of a working relationship with the provinces. I will not deny for a minute the fact that the transfer payment floor was reduced from $12.5 billion to $11 billion. It has since been put back to $12.5 billion. I will not deny that, no question. Why did that happen?

The solution from opposition members is simple: spend more money. Where do we get the money when we are running an overdraft of $42 billion? I know they are tired of hearing about it but the reality is that something had to be done. This government along with the people of Canada had the courage to suck it up and do it. We had to make changes.

I find it astounding that a government like the Tory government in Ontario would not simply applaud the moves of this government. Even though that government has yet to eliminate its deficit, it is still running a deficit in handing back a tax cut to the taxpayers. How does that work? It is the same as saying to our kids that we are going to run a family overdraft but we are going to increase their allowance. At a certain point in time it is not possible to do that.

The message finally came from this government under this Prime Minister and this finance minister that we just simply had to cut the suit, we had to cut the cloth to fit the body. We had to start living within our means. That is exactly what this government has done. We have clearly stated what our priorities are. Debt reduction.

I believe that the vast majority of Canadians agree that debt reduction should be the number one priority of this government and any future government. We are saddling our children with a debt that is simply too large. We are all to blame for it, even those in this place who have never been in government and who have constantly pushed, prodded, lobbied and demonstrated—and I refer mostly to the NDP—for governments to spend more and more without any sense of responsibility.

All of us, the past Liberal governments, past Conservative governments and the opposition have a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayer to be more responsible with what we spend their money on. We are all culpable, liable and responsible for the size of the debt. It cannot continue.

If members opposite really want $2 billion—and I do not know why they are putting a limit on it by the way. It is entirely possible by the time the budget comes down that there could be more than that spent in health care. I do not know why they would do that, but I guess it seemed like a good idea at the time. Time will tell.

Should we do it in midstream? Sure we have a surplus and we acknowledge that it appears the surplus is in the neighbourhood of $10 billion. And we should be blamed for that is what I hear members opposite saying. Okay, fine, we will accept the blame for running a $10 billion surplus. Bad, bad Liberal Party. It is terrible. How did we get there? Of course we made adjustments in transfer payments. Of course we worked with our partners in the provinces, including the province of Quebec to see how to restructure the financial status of the country.

[An hon. member]

Efficiency.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

My colleague says we became more efficient. That is absolutely true and we required them to do the same and they have done so. We have seen efficiencies at all levels of government.

We are not nearly done in those areas. The work of the government after we get the debt reduction plan in place will be to look at tax reduction. We have already effected $7 billion in tax reductions, but there will be more. I hope these are targeted to areas that will boost the economy. I would like to see it in areas where we can see a return on that investment.

The kind of spending opposition parties should be talking about is how can a government spend to effect a return on its investments. We should eliminate the word spend and replace it with the word invest. At that time we can then look toward a return for our young people, so that we have some confidence that our young people will indeed continue to have a health care system with the five pillars that are so important to Canadian health care and that they will continue to have access to education.

We hear the criticism of the millennium fund “Give us the money but stay out of our way; we want to spend it; don't you do it”. This kind of parochial bickering should stop so that we can continue to build what truly is recognized around the world as the greatest country in which to live.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Mississauga went on for great lengths about the hostility of Canadians toward Ottawa and toward his government in particular. He seems to be mystified by this. If he would just listen to his own condescending bombast he would understand why the rest of Canada hates this place so much and why Canadians feel the way they do about Ottawa. He is the epitome of what is wrong. He almost turns me into a separatist when I listen to him.

The member spoke about the relationship between spending and responsibility. He used the analogy of youngsters leaving home and wanting to hang on to their allowance. I would submit that he has it completely reversed because what has happened in the relationships between this government and the provinces is that the Government of Canada entered into solemn agreements with the provinces. It was going to contribute 50% of the cost of health care and in return the federal government would have a very strong hand in managing and organizing the direction of Canadian health care. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Now it has cut contributions down to roughly 11% or 12% of the total cost yet it still wants to keep its heavy hand on the provinces and control, control, control, and that is spelled L-i-b-e-r-a-l.

[An hon. member]

They know best.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Yes, mother government knows best.

If the Liberals would look at their rather checkered record, if I may use a more polite term, in their relations with the provinces, they would realize why that anger is out there. He said that in spite of the massive cuts—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

We said two minutes. If the member would please ask his question now.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I was just getting going. Actually, I have no question. I just wanted to get a few things off my chest.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would say the question the member is asking me is whether I agree. No, I do not agree.

In a press release on October 28 the Reform Party stated that it wants the government to put $7 billion into health care transfers. But wait a minute, it is also demanding reductions of $7 billion in EI premiums. On July 30 it promised that 50% of any surplus would go to an agenda of tax cuts and the other 50% would go to debt payment. Let us do the math. We have a $10.4 billion surplus. That is $5.2 billion for each of those initiatives. Then the Reformers want to take $1.1 billion out of the Department of National Defence. They are all over the map. Spend, cut, no responsibility.

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member opposite waxed eloquent, but he missed the point, the point being transfer payments.

In his torrent of words, I caught a few which were insulting for the provinces in general and Quebeckers in particular. He said something to the effect that we were begging the noble and generous Canada for more money.

Is it begging to ask that what was taken from one's wallet be returned? This is what we are doing. We want the federal government to restore the level of funding of transfer payments to the provinces; the cuts to those transfers forced the provinces to cut spending for education and other essential services.

What did they do with that money? They created their millennium fund, which gives them visibility. They traded essential services for a millennium fund in order to get recognition. They did not fool the students, at least not the Quebec students. Those students did not take the bait.

Now, they want to do the same with health care. They forced us to cut essential services in hospitals and they hope, one day, to come up with a nice, big project which, they hope, will fix everything and give them visibility.

Their premise is wrong. They think people are fools and will swallow their story. They have cut transfer payments to force provinces to cut services. And now they want to act like a saviour, handing out money and services.

The premise is wrong, we are no fools. People are no fools. We are not going to fall for that. I do not have a question. This is a comment.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I never suggested those members were imbeciles. I suggested they were separatists. I do not have a problem with his taking my remarks as insults, but they were not directed at the people of Quebec. They were clearly directed at the Bloc.

It is the Bloc members who continue to pontificate in this House as if they represent a province that believes in its entirety in the nonsense they bring to this place. It does not. The majority of Quebecers are Canadians. They are proud Canadians who understand fiscal responsibility. They share this government's belief that eliminating the deficit, paying down the debt, reducing taxes and funding health care will be the top priorities of this government.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, it always amazes and saddens me to see how a very serious subject like the health care of this nation's citizens can be trivialized by the kind of comments I heard from the member opposite. It is used as an opportunity to take swipes at another political party rather than to address the issue of the care of this nation's citizens.

It bothers me to know that right across this country our health care system is in a state of crisis. Doctors are leaving our provinces and going to the United States because of our health care system. People are on waiting lists for health care in hospitals and others are unable to afford drugs. I could go on and on.

Our aboriginal people in the north are facing a health crisis in their communities. Someone trivialized this issue by using such terms as “nasty resolution”. Showmanship I say it is. There is nothing nasty about being concerned about the care and the health of our citizens.

The member opposite asks, what does one have to do to get the message across? I would say to that member opposite, what does the public have to do, what do those in need of health care have to do for this government to realize that there is a need to come to grips with the health care problems we are facing?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted that I seem to have at least engendered some anger over there. Frankly, that is what I was trying to do.

Tommy Douglas must be turning over in his grave.

If the member wants to talk about sadness, how about talking about the day his leader stood in this place and actually said that Lucien Bouchard cares more about health care than Jean Chrétien?

Can the member imagine a federal leader of the New Democratic Party, a party whose members have the right to stand in this place and say they were a major player in the founding of medicare in this country, the party of Tommy Douglas, of principles gone past, actually supporting a separatist premier? That indeed was a sad day in the House of Commons of this great country and a sad day for that party.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Madam Speaker, the partisan diatribe is quite disappointing today.

The provinces' difficulty is the prioritization of the cuts the government made primarily on their backs. Are those cuts to his liking?

I think of the fisheries department which has some 6,000 people employed, most of them in Ottawa. It has been a disgrace the way the fish stocks have been destroyed on both coasts.

Is this the kind of prioritization the federal government approves of, when people are not able to get into hospital and once they do get there they are not able to get the treatment they need?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite wants to look for the root of the tragedy, in Atlantic Canada particularly, he need look no further than the former minister of fisheries, the hon. John Crosbie. That is where the root of the problem lay in that particular industry.

In relationship to health care—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.

Privilege

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I apologize for interrupting the business of the House in this debate to introduce a question of privilege, but I understand that this is an appropriate time to do so and I crave the indulgence of yourself and the House.

My question of privilege arises out of something which occurred this morning. It arises out of the publication of an article in the National Post newspaper by a reporter by the name of Mike Trickey in which he published, verbatim, parts of a draft report presently being considered by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

I would like to make a few preliminary comments about this publication prior to going into exactly why this is a question of privilege.

The first comment I would like to make is that the National Post seems to have a completely contemptuous disregard for the process of this House, which was clear from an editorial published last week. They seemed to totally misunderstand what is going on in our committee.

Apart from that, I was asked as chairman of the committee, by every one of the members of our committee who were there this morning, to raise this matter with you, Madam Speaker, and with our colleagues in the House.

Like all committees, we require that when we are doing our work and when we are operating in camera that that work be kept private. I will come back to citation 57 of Beauchesne's which speaks of the work of parliament in camera.

Madam Speaker, you know and members of the House know how hard we work in committee to arrive at what is best for Canadian citizens. That is where we discuss these issues.

This is a matter of national and international importance. The publication of this article, which takes out of context parts of this report, which was not a report but only a draft for consideration by members of the committee, intimates that conclusions have been made by the committee which have not yet been made in any way. It intimates that we are going in directions. The article leads us to believe that we are threatening our relations with the United States of America, one of our closest allies. It threatens the very nature of our Canadian politics.

The article is wrong in the sense that it pretends this is a report, when in fact it is a draft. It leads to conclusions which will interfere with the ability of members of our committee to conduct their hearings in a way which will enable us to come to a report which will be of benefit to this parliament, to the people of Canada and ultimately to the international community.

For all of those reasons I was asked if I would rise on this point. The members of our committee work hard. The members of our committee are determined to ensure that the House will have the benefit of their deliberations. They are all searching for the best solution for Canadians, from all parts of the House. The publication of a committee's proceedings prior to its conclusions and the release of a draft report is, in my view, a violation of the privileges not only of myself as the chair, but of every member of that committee and every member of this House.

How will we now come to an agreement on this draft when it has been released to the press? What do these people really care, except for getting some sort of a scoop? This is a question of the integrity of the parliamentary process. There is the integrity of the committee process that we as members of the House must consider.

We have a systemic problem. This is, I understand, a continuing practice. Every single report that has been discussed in committee so far this year has been released or leaked by someone to the press. It is reducing the committee process to a virtual impossibility. We will not be capable of discussing our reports if we cannot conduct our discussions in a way which will enable us to craft those essential compromises and those essential understandings which make the House work, which make democracy work and which make the committee system work.

Madam Speaker, I urge you to consider this matter. I would suggest that if it continues and is allowed to continue it will destroy the efficacy of the committee system which is the very underpinning of the democratic principles on which the House survives. This House will not survive if we as members cannot deliberate amongst ourselves and arrive at conclusions without someone leaking confidential materials and pretending or suggesting that those are the conclusions of the committee which have not yet been reached.

I suggest this raises a prima facie case of breach of privilege. It is a breach of my privilege as the committee chairman. It is a breach of the privilege of every member of our committee. Madam Speaker, I urge you to consider it as being a breach of the privilege of every single member of this House. It is happening with rapidity and it is going to destroy the way in which we function. It is a breach of privilege by the source who leaked the report. It is breach of privilege by the person who published it. I urge you, Madam Speaker, to consider this question.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was at the committee meeting this morning with the chairman who just raised this question of privilege. I thank him for raising it in the House. I will only take a minute to lend my words of support to him.

I am somewhat reluctant to blame the newspaper. I am pretty upset with the person who leaked the report. The newspaper man somehow levered it out of somebody who had a copy of the draft report who felt there was some political mileage to be made from leaking it. It is really unfortunate, but it is not unlike what has happened to most committee reports this fall.

It would be a rare exception when the reports have not been leaked. I do not know who is doing it, but it is a very disturbing trend.

What it means, of course, is that parliamentarians or someone in the system is saying that the committee does not deserve to be able to deliberate and, if it does, they are going to cut it off at the knees by leaking the report to the media.

Secondly, it tells parliament that its work is not that important, because before parliamentarians get to see it they are going to put it in a national newspaper. Someone is saying that and it is a shame.

Lastly, it is a concern especially for backbenchers. I am certainly not blaming the cabinet; I am just saying that often the only meaningful work for backbenchers is the work they do in committee. They bring a report to parliament and ask for a government response.

Someone is laying down the trump card. They are saying “I just trumped all of your work by leaking it to a newspaper”. It is no wonder that backbench MPs from all sides of the House get up some mornings and say “What is the point of going to committee if that is the way someone is going to treat the work?” The work is secondary. It is not important. I do not know who is saying it, but someone is saying “It is not nearly as important as the headline I might be able to get”.

Members of the committee discussed this morning the hope that, at the very least, the Chair would refer this matter to the liaison committee. The liaison committee is made up of all of the chairs of all of the committees of the House of Commons. This is a systemic problem. All of the chairs are facing this. All the work they do is being undercut by these constant leaks.

I would urge the Speaker, at the very least, to refer this to the liaison committee for immediate study to see if there is some better way to draft reports so that material is not available to reporters or to some unscrupulous person who may want to leak it to them.

At the very least, I would hope that the Speaker would find it a question of privilege and refer it back to that committee for immediate study. Perhaps it could come up with a better solution that will gain the respect of this side and backbenchers on that side of the House, so that we can move forward with confidence and so that the House and committees will come first and the headline seekers will be put in their place.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Madam Speaker, concerning this issue, the Bloc Quebecois also deplores the leak we were made aware this morning. Some people think this is a way of intimidating the foreign affairs committee so that it will refrain from making recommendations to bring about a foreign policy more attuned to our times.

This morning, we determined that we should support the chair of our committee, and all opposition party members felt it was necessary to make a statement in the House to insist on the independence of the foreign affairs committee and its members, and on the independence of parliament in this matter.

We think that this statement will clarify the situation, and help prevent further intrusion in a process that has been confidential up to now and should have remained so. If there was a breach, it would appear that some people want to use the process to—

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I wonder if any more members want to take part in this debate.

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[The Speaker]

Then we will come back to this issue in due course, but since it is now 2 o'clock we will move on to members' statements.