David Kilgour

[Supply, March 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I must begin with an apology to my colleagues in the Bloc who are greatly interested in this matter, but I am going to speak in English. My sources for the figures come from the Department of Finance. If they do not agree with my numbers, I trust that my colleagues, the Bloc included, will correct me.

Let me speak first to the repeated provincial claims that the federal share of health spending is in the 14¢ to 16¢ range. To arrive at this figure the provinces, and I believe the Bloc, divide the cash portion of the Canada health and social transfer, the CHST, by all of their social spending in the social domain, not just their health care spending. They include also social services and primary, secondary and post-secondary education in their calculation.

It seems to me that it is misleading to use the total amount of provincial social spending to calculate the federal share of provincial health care spending. Total provincial health spending is actually $77 billion compared to $143 billion for social spending.

It is also misleading for the provinces to ignore the $17 billion in CHST tax points provided by the federal government and the more than $10 billion transferred to provinces through the equalization programs. These amounts are available for health care spending and the choice is up to the provinces.

The CHST is a block fund which provides flexibility to the provinces to allocate the funding according to their own priorities. In short, they can spend as much of the CHST on health as they choose. Under the CHST there is no share of federal transfers earmarked for health care, none. Provinces have full flexibility to spend all or any part of the CHST and equalization on health care.

It was by mutual agreement that cost sharing of specific provincial expenditures on health and post-secondary education were changed to block funding. This gave all of the provinces much greater flexibility on how they would allocate federal transfers.

The provinces have complained that cost sharing distorted provincial spending decisions and favoured better off provinces since they could afford to spend more and so attract more federal dollars than the less well off provinces. Effective April 1 of this year the federal government will create a new Canada health transfer to improve transparency and accountability of federal transfer support for health.

What exactly is the federal contribution to health spending? We have all asked ourselves that question. The federal government contributes to provincial health spending through the CHST, both cash and tax points, and equalization and makes substantial and direct contributions to health care and health research.

Let us look for a moment at the CHST, that is, cash and tax points, which amount to almost $38 billion in 2003-04 including the $1 billion CHST supplement. The current CHST supports health, post-secondary education, social assistance, social services including early childhood development and early learning and child care services. I wonder how many members of the House accept this.

Since health spending represents about 62% of the total that the provinces spend in these attended areas, it is reasonable to assume that they spend 62% of the CHST, on average, on health annually. That is more than $23 billion of the annual CHST transfer. Adding the $1 billion in support from the new health reform fund increases the amount to over $24 billion. This total of over $24 billion is an amount equal to 32% of provincial health care spending of $77 billion.

What is the additional federal contribution to provincial health spending through equalization? The federal government provides eight of the ten provinces with equalization and they are free to allocate as much of that money as they choose to health. On average, provinces are spending about 38% of their program budgets on health care. I thought it was higher than that, but the finance department insists that it is only 38%.

It is reasonable to assume that 38% of the annual equalization goes to health, which means that more than $3 billion a year for health care. Added to the more than $24 billion in federal support through the CHST, the health reform fund which I mentioned, this brings the federal contribution to approximately $28 billion or 36%. I would suggest that we are getting a long way from 16% of provincial health care funding.

Finally, what about direct federal contributions to total public health spending? The federal government's direct spending for health care is estimated at approximately $5 billion in 2003-04 and that is for first nations health, veterans health, health protection, disease prevention, health information and health related research. As well, through the tax system, the federal government provides support worth about $1 billion a year. That includes credits for medical expenses, disability caregivers and infirm dependents.

It is not much of a secret where I am going. When we add the over $6 billion in direct spending and tax credits to the $28 billion in transfers to the provinces, the federal government is currently providing about $34 billion a year, or more than 40% of all national public spending on health care in Canada. We all hope this amount will continue to grow, and of course following recent investments outlined in the budget of 2003.

In summary, health care makes up 62% on average of what the provinces spend on social programs covered by the CHST. As I have said, that makes it reasonable to infer that probably 62% of the CHST is spent on health. If we add the federal support to the health reform fund, and that came to $24 billion, I do not think I need to repeat what I have just said.

In short, the federal government's contributions would strongly appear to be more than 40% of all national public spending on health care in our country.

[Haiti, March 10th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, the member is raising a very important point. CARICOM is the body which speaks for the Caribbean nations. He asked about an independent inquiry to determine whether or not Mr. Aristide was removed or left voluntarily. We can only gain by having such a process and can lose nothing. I am in agreement with my friend's point.

[Haiti, March 10th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, my hon. colleague will know that I was no longer the secretary of state for Latin America at the time. I did not attend the conference. I read the same article that my friend is referring to.

I cannot say whether or not what he is alleging was true or not because I was not there. The position of secretary of state for Latin America and Africa no longer exists. I cannot answer his question. As he will appreciate, I will not try to answer a question to which I do not know the answer.

[Haiti, March 10th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I would like to associate myself immediately with the comments that have just been made by the member for Saint John to wish the members of our armed forces every success and safety in Haiti.

In fact, the Haitians have a good deal to be proud of. It is the first republic in the world led by persons of African origin, and the first Caribbean nation to achieve independence in 1804. Unfortunately, the people of Haiti have endured long stretches of a dictatorial rule, interspersed with glimpses of democratic hope, like the presidential elections of 1990.

Recent events in Haiti, as everyone knows, have only served to emphasize that there is still a precarious and politically volatile situation.

I had the opportunity to visit Haiti in the early 1990s, to discuss the role of parliamentary committees with the newly elected representatives. The Haitians greeted me with open arms and they were warm and hospitable. What struck me the most was the dark legacy of violence and political unrest. Of the 42 heads of state in the country's history, 29 were assassinated or ousted. The culture of corruption is rampant. The country's history has often been marked with dictatorships, carnage and unsuccessful attempts to establish peace.

As Secretary-General Kofi Annan stated in this chamber so eloquently yesterday:

The experience of Haiti shows how poverty, instability and violence feed on each other with repercussions for the broader region.

He urged the international community to help Haitians restore peace and harmony, while making a long term commitment to the region.

Too often, we in the international community make half-hearted attempts to right wrongs. We owe it to ourselves, as Canadians and as citizens of the western hemisphere, to ensure that the entire region enjoys long term political stability.

For there to be democracy, there must be stability and the appropriate infrastructure. It must be based on a culture that is capable of sustaining it. We must not imagine, as we did with the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, that sending troops for 90 days will be sufficient to restore democracy in Haiti.

What we need is an international commitment to improve the situation and we must help the Haitian people to build schools, set up police forces, establish a court system, get a legislative assembly up and running, and put in place a transparent bureaucracy.

There is a terrible impasse in a regime where the poor are punished just because they exist. Many countries decided to withdraw their aid after the frankly suspicious re-election of Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 2000. They suspected, perhaps for good reason, that more than 70% of the funding had been used for illegal purposes or pocketed by corrupt officials. The bottom line, however, is that the ones hardest hit by these decisions to withdraw were the 80% of Haitians living below the poverty line.

Haitians need help in tackling their basic health problems, including dramatic rates of infection of HIV-AIDS and tuberculosis, their pervasive societal inequities, and their lack of even the most basic of infrastructures.

Democracy is a wonderful thing. Its self-determination can lift even the most oppressed people out of misery, but it is difficult to participate when one has little to live for and cannot provide for one's own basic needs.

Mere elections will not be enough to fix the problems in Haiti. A sustained commitment is necessary, one that will build the peace and security that are necessary to achieve rule of law. Rule of law perhaps should be Canada's foremost export.

Before the March break, I asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs about the role Canada could play in a possible humanitarian intervention in Haiti.

Canadians have much to learn from the experiences of General Roméo Dallaire in Rwanda. We must intervene when necessary and we must do so expeditiously and multilaterally.

This is why I am delighted to hear that 450 Canadian troops are set to join U.S. forces in Haiti this week, but much remains to be done. Reports out of Haiti yesterday indicate that the presence of foreign troops had not done much to quell the violence.

There is a complete lack of infrastructure and Police Chief Leon Charles admitted recently that he has approximately 3,500 police officers to cover a country of eight million.

The exiled Jean-Bertrand Aristide recently urged his supporters to mount a “peaceful resistance to restore constitutional order”. One must sincerely hope that Aristide's people will not interpret this message as an incitement to further violence, but it is difficult to be sure of that.

Furthermore, the opposition parties in Haiti are not linked to the rebel fighters and have little control over their actions. Haiti is currently a failed state, tragically, where anarchy and chaos reign, and the rule of law is non-existent.

Yesterday our Minister for International Cooperation announced $5 million in aid to address the situation in Haiti. That is in addition to the $1.9 million already provided to the Red Cross, and the $5 million provided to the Organization of American States.

Canada has given Haiti upwards of $600 million in the last 40 years. The money has been there, but perhaps the commitment has not followed. Obviously, simply throwing money at the problem is not the solution.

We need to live up to our international agreements and the promises we have made. In 2001, at the Quebec City summit, Canada along with other nations pledged to do our best to support constitutional rule across the Americas. Haitians deserve our best efforts to keep that promise.

This year marks Haiti's 200th anniversary of independence. What better way to celebrate than to build a better country for all of its citizens? What a present Canada could give by providing genuine long term commitment to resolving the situation.

[Supply, February 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I detected some sophistry in my colleague's arguments. Sophistry makes the worse argument look like the better. Did my ears play tricks on me or did he say that because Nelson Mandela was considered by somebody to be a terrorist therefore we should invest in Ivanhoe mines in Burma because they happen to be led by one of the most oppressive governments on the face of the earth, perhaps in this century?

Did he say that the CPP board should be allowed to invest in tobacco companies and liquor companies? Maybe I misheard him, but surely to goodness we could have good returns and better returns by investing in ethical companies. I do not include cigarette companies and liquor companies in that, but perhaps my ears were playing tricks on me.

[Supply, February 24th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Churchill for a very thoughtful speech. I realize she was going after colleagues from the Conservative Party, but I would like to ask her a number of things although she may not want to deal with all of them.

Does she think that the CPP should invest in Ivanhoe? As she knows, Ivanhoe has a mine in Burma, Myanmar, where 50 people were killed last May, with bamboo poles I understand, not very far away from the Ivanhoe facility. I remind her that Canadians, including Albertans, got Petro-Canada to pull out of Burma and perhaps persuaded Talisman to sell out its interest in Sudan. I would like her to comment on that.

On corporate social responsibility, would she let CPP invest in a fabric company, if there is such a one, in Bangladesh? She undoubtedly knows there are about two million people, primarily women, in Dhaka who earn their small salaries every day from making garments that come into Canada under special arrangement.

If there is time and if she wants to deal with it, a constituent of mine complained recently that he has a wife and three children on a single income. On a $45,000 income he pays about $12,000 in taxes and CPP. What would she say to him when he says he is paying too many taxes?

[Cattle Industry, February 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Western Economic Diversification today announced $680,000 in funding for the development of a new testing technology for live cattle.

The project is a first step toward a system that will eliminate the need to slaughter animals in order to test for BSE and other diseases.

Canada must be a world leader in 21st century technologies. Even more importantly these days, the mandate assists our key beef industry in western Canada, on which thousands and thousands of families depend for their livelihoods.

[Foreign Affairs, February 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Questions have been raised about Haiti. Canada, since Rwanda, has spoken much about humanitarian interventions. Is he prepared to consider asking the UN to stage a humanitarian intervention in the case of the terrible situation happening in Haiti?

[Export Award of Distinction, February 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Western Economic Diversification presented the Export Award of Distinction to BioWare of Edmonton.

BioWare develops advanced technology for video and computer games. It has received over 37 Game of the Year awards for its internationally acclaimed products.

Lucasfilms, Microsoft and other producers have chosen this company as their partner for international projects.

Since 1995, BioWare has sold more than 8 million software units in over 40 countries. Exports make up about 98% of BioWare's sales; last year alone accounting for about $13 million.

The 21st century economy is an economy open to the world. Western Canadian companies like BioWare are leading the way.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the minister on her speech about a half hour ago celebrating the start of Black History Month.

Could she perhaps add something to what she has already said about her hopes and dreams for newcomers to Canada, not of origin in Europe, and particularly women?