Margaret Bridgman

[Non-Confidence Motions, May 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the House to speak in favour of Motion No. 89. I would like to thank the member for Mission-Coquitlam for bringing this motion to the attention of the House.

This motion goes to the very root of many of the fundamental problems with the Canadian political system. The motion states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should permit members of the House of Commons to fully represent their constituents' views on the government's legislative program-

That is part of what the motion states. I believe this to be a very important component in relation to parliamentary reforms. There are many approaches that one can take in discussing the full motion. I would like to perhaps focus on what the passage of this motion would mean to MPs who are not in government positions or shadow cabinet positions but relegated backbenchers and what it actually means to them to not be able to participate in government decisions or shadow cabinet decisions, et cetera.

In other words, I am actually trying to explain to the Liberal MPs who find themselves in the backbench row why it is in their best interest to support this motion. One thing this motion would do is give individual members more authority and more responsibility.

The agenda of a government would not simply be written by the cabinet ministers and the top bureaucrats. If this motion were passed, cabinet would have to consult and listen to comments from backbencher MPs when drafting legislation.

For example, when the 1994 budget was drafted, who actually put it together? Were all the members of the Liberal Party which is the governing party sought out for advice on what they would like to see in the budget or was the budget put together by the finance minister and by the people of the finance department?

The basic problem here is that the government which drafts the legislation and sets the agenda is the ministers. Essentially the cabinet is the government. Members of the party that is in power which forms the government are almost in the same position as those in opposition except that they have fewer avenues to express their concerns or voice their opinions.

Many government party MPs are unfairly relegated to obscurity because they are not in a cabinet position. They do not have as much opportunity as opposition MPs to ask questions during Question Period; there is a greater number of them so they have less opportunity to give speeches or to be noticed for their efforts. It must be frustrating for the government party MPs to be so restricted in what they can actually do to reflect a positive change on government. This is something that should be changed.

Working on committees with members from other parties has shown me that there people in all parties with much to contribute to this country. Innovative ideas, thoughtful solutions are not solely possessed by any party in this House. By opening up the process to all members we add much more in terms of ideas, proposals and solutions.

Instead of the government simply counting on unquestionable support of all government party MPs, leaders would have to deal with issues and problems in such a way as to achieve consensus.

The second positive aspect I want to address is that this legislation would enable members to be more responsive to their constituents and to the regions where the need arises. There are certain issues that cut across party lines and form instead along regional or provincial lines; for example, agricultural fishery issues.

The system of voting along party lines has produced the extreme partisanship that currently exists in Canadian politics. I believe this partisanship to be largely negative. It creates a situation in which the opposition must vigorously oppose everything the government does or it is seen as not doing its job.

That is not why I entered politics, nor is it why the Reform Party came to town. We believe that reformers came to Ottawa intent on improving the atmosphere and the workings of Parliament. We came here intending not to partake in partisan bickering but to provide a constructive alternative to the government.

By trying to follow this strategy we have been roundly criticized, especially by the media. Most comments I read in the media seem to think that Reform provides no opposition at all. Our lack of opposition is seen because we are not screaming, yelling and pounding on desks.

Certainly there exists a fundamental difference in political philosophies between the Liberals, Reformers and all parties and we must be aware of that. That philosophical difference should not prevent us all from working together and putting our ideas out in the House, or even forming non-partisan coalitions to effect some positive change.

The more we involve individual MPs in the democratic process, the more the people of Canada will become involved in the process. The people of Canada understand that their political power is essentially limited to a vote every four to five years. They understand that the party with the majority of seats forms the government which then has up to five years to implement an agenda. This results in making people apathetic and cynical about the happenings of governments between elections.

If the election of 1993 showed us anything it was that the people of Canada desperately want their public representatives to represent their concerns rather than simply tow party lines.

I understand that political parties are essential components of our political system and I also understand that we are national politicians who must have a national perspective, but our main focus as representatives must always be the people who sent us here, the people of our ridings. If we do not represent their wishes, why do we call ourselves a representative democracy?

I urge all members of this House to put aside their partisanship when regarding this bill and look at it in terms of its attempt to enable individual members of all parties to be more effective in representing their constituents. Let us demonstrate to the Canadian people that we have learned from the lesson of 1993 and respond to their call for a more open and responsive Parliament.

[Health Care, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Health. The minister has reduced access to health care services in her recent decision to cut funding to British Columbia.

Access to health care is the right of all Canadians. How can the minister say she is complying fully with the Canada Health Act when her actions are making health care less and less accessible?

[Health Care, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

One of the five principles of the Canada Health Act is accessibility. Traditionally this principle has been interpreted narrowly, that is, ensuring that health care is not denied for financial reasons.

The greatest barriers to health care today are the line-ups and waiting lists Canadians encounter when they require health care services.

Does the minister agree that accessibility for health care must be defined in terms of timeliness as well as affordability?

[Product Packaging, May 12th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address this motion. I support it in principle, but I do have some concerns about the intent and the interpretation of the dates.

The motion talks about a best-before date in consumption of food products and beverages and also an expiry date. This is an excellent approach because consumers should have a better understanding of the quality both in freshness and nutrition of the product that they are getting.

However I wonder about the actual interpretation of the dates. In the presentation of the hon. member for Winnipeg North on April 12, reference was made to the expiry date being the date of the shelf life of the product in the shop. Further in the same presentation a reference was made to products that have or are considered to have a shelf life of 90 days or less having a best-before date on them. As there is one date on the package this could be confusing to consumers, are they actually looking at an expiry date or best-before or a "what is the difference" kind of thing, as the situation stands now.

Food and beverages are perishable products and there definitely is a time factor involved as to the quality of the item. We need to identify that time factor in much more explicit terms through our dates, because there really is not any other way of establishing it that I can see.

If we were to think of the expiry date as it is now as the shelf life date, we would be indicating to the proprietors of shops that the product must be sold prior to that date, and if not it comes off the shelf. On the other hand, if we think of the expiry date as the date on which the food product must be consumed, then we are setting up a situation concerning the date on which that product may get purchased. What happens to it when we get it home? Unless we request the manufacturer to start putting things on such as "must be refrigerated when open" or various other kinds of instructions for us, we need to have some sort of sense of what that date means.

Does the expiry date mean shelf life in a shop, does the expiry date mean as long as the product stays in the package that it was originally packaged in but once opened the situation is different, or does the expiry date mean the date the product is actually consumed?

Following that same kind of argument, if you look at the time of deterioration of a product being from the time it is packaged to the time it is consumed, then you can run into standards or criteria. Probably debates will arise out of what would constitute a valid expiry date.

If we see a product that has the two dates on it and the expiry date indicates the shelf life date then the owner of a shop must sell it before that date or take it off the shelf. Then the best-before date would be slotted in there as an earlier time.

Are we actually looking at two different situations now which could create a marketing system? For example, fresh bread and day old bread would be sold at a certain price to the best-before date and then at a different price from that date to the expiry date. The other thing that would happen from a marketing point of view would be to get into debates again as to what really is the best-before date and what is the criteria.

The other thing that comes to mind on these dates is this. If the expiry date is not the shelf life date but the actual consumption date, then we are getting into a situation where there would be different criteria applicable to different types of food products. All these would have to be listed on the packaging to tell us how to store it once it is opened.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North made reference to a tin of tomato sauce, I believe it was, that was put into the frig. Once it was opened the expiry date on that tin of tomato sauce was irrelevant. The sauce would be no good within three or four days. I believe the expiry date was longer, a year and a half or something like that.

We are dealing with two different sorts of things here that have to be clearly addressed in this bill. What does the expiry date actually mean? Is it the shelf life in the shop, or is it the time that the product must be consumed? RIf it is the shelf life in the shop and we slot it in between packaging and the expiry date on the shelf life of best-before we may be running the possibility of setting up a marketing situation.

The other possible ramification that comes to mind in relation to this approach to the dates would be the guarantee. I would think by having the expiry date, the shelf life and the best-before date spotted somewhere in between, we are actually asking manufacturers to guarantee that their product, if the packaging remains unchanged, will be the quality on the best-before day that it was on the packaging day. After that there would be a gradual deterioration occurring. It is still safe to consume between best-before and expiry and can be sold.

Those are some of the concerns I have in relation to the actual dates. I think we have to clarify them very specifically for the public. As it is now, I can go and look at a date on a particular product-

[Nursing, May 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, today I join my colleague from the Bloc to pay tribute to nurses on this International Nurses Day in National Nursing Week.

Since the days of Florence Nightingale the nursing profession has improved upon the knowledge base and standards of bedside nursing as well as expanding the nursing practices and principles into health care areas such as research, education, counselling and administration.

Nurses are the backbone of health care by participating in nearly all aspects of health and providing service seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Nurses continue to meet the challenge of providing their services with less funding. They extend the extra effort needed to help maintain the excellent nursing service standards we enjoy.

Let us on this occasion not only recognize the invaluable work of nurses but also pledge to take the necessary steps to solidify financing of health care in Canada.

[Party Fundraising, May 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to support this motion which states:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should bring in legislation limiting solely to individuals the right to donate to a federal political party, and restricting such donations to a maximum of $5,000 a year.

I wish to thank the hon. member for Richelieu for bringing such an important issue to the attention of the House.

This is a two-part motion in which both parts play very important roles because of the significant changes each will bring to the existing system.

The first part, as it eliminates donations to individuals only immediately eliminates any group of individuals from donating. I use the word group here in its broadest sense; that is, groups ranging from large corporations of individuals united under a common banner, be it a corporation, a union or an association, to the duo team of the Mr. and Mrs. group.

On the second part of the motion, individual donations limited to a maximum $5,000 a year, I reflect for a moment on the figure of $5,000 and admit that the reasoning for this particular figure versus any other tends to allude me at this time. If it is representative of a certain percentage of the average Canadian income I think it is a little on the high side. On the other hand I am very pleased to see that it does not relate to the amount allowed for an income tax deduction because I anticipate, quite strongly actually, that the present income tax system will itself be remodelled during the next decade.

The concept of identifying a maximum amount for an annual donation is a good one. It creates the need for a candidate and his or her team to go directly to the grassroots, to the individuals involved in the election process to raise the funds needed to facilitate their campaign in getting their message across to as many more voters as possible. It will also reduce any undue influence that wealthy individuals or groups of individuals such as corporations, unions, associations, et cetera may have on the political process.

Some people may criticize this analysis, especially the second reason about the undue influence. They will possibly criticize this as being too cynical or for downplaying the role of public policy in an election. In fact this has already been done.

When the motion was first debated in this House, my colleague, the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, was portrayed by the members opposite as believing that "all those who contribute to a political system expect something in return". That is from the March 18 Hansard , somewhere around page 2510.

At the same time members opposite use the standard line of many politicians contending that people donate money to political parties based on altruistic principles. That is, people contribute toward a process because they want good government.

I do indeed accept that many people donate for better government. It is certainly true and I wish to state unequivocally that individuals, corporations, unions, et cetera, do in fact donate to political parties and/or individual candidates for the purpose of good government and good representation.

However, as my colleague tried to point out on March 18, it is also certainly true that some donations are made in the political process for the purpose of influence. How else does one explain the fact that many groups, corporations, et cetera, donate money to two different parties? Do they believe that both parties have equally good policies? Or is it more realistic to believe that they want to retain influence in both parties so that whichever one forms the government they can point out later their financial support?

Another observation along this line would be the movement of some corporations, associations, et cetera, of their donations from probable losers to probable winners as the election campaign progresses. This does not mean we believe that every individual or group that contributes toward the political process is expecting something other than good government in return. However, it does point out there are other possible reasons for donating.

The Reform Party does not have a problem with private citizens spending their hard earned money toward achieving good or better government. What the Reform Party does have a problem with is large corporations, unions, special interest groups, et cetera, donating large amounts of money. I am not talking about $100, $1,000 or $2,000 here, but donating large amounts of money to certain candidates or parties because they may see this as a way to control the political process and to influence or dominate a government's agenda.

That is precisely what this motion is seeking to prevent. We are all aware it is a basic reality of politics that for an individual or a party to get elected it requires funding. As an American legislator once remarked, money is the mother's milk of politics.

That is not to say those with the most money to spend on campaigns necessarily win. That was demonstrated in the results of this last election. However, we in the House must recognize that small donations made by individual citizens are the best way of funding of politics in Canada. It broadens the support needed by candidates to get elected. It also removes the opportunity for undue influence of wealthy individuals, groups, associations, et cetera, on the political process.

[Supply, May 5th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member this. The motion relates to the unacceptable delays in converting the national defence industry to civilian production, but minimum reference was made to that actual approach in his presentation.

I would like him to expand on that theme a little bit, if indeed there is a program along this line and if there is some delay in this that could possibly be speeded up.

[Tobacco Products, April 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's answer. Considering that the Department of Health has publicly stated that its study would take until the end of the year and that the committee on health care was also looking at this, is it fair to assume that the government will not make a decision on this issue until those reports are in?

[Tobacco Products, April 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

Recently, after having asked the House Standing Committee on Health to study the issue of plain packaging of tobacco products, the hon. minister publicly stated: "I would like to see us move on that as quickly as we possibly can" and "I feel that it would do a lot to discourage young people especially from taking up smoking".

Could the minister tell the House why she has requested both her department and the health committee to study this issue, at considerable expense to the taxpayer, when it is apparent from her statements that she has already decided to go ahead with the plain packaging?

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, April 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that the Reform Party members will be dividing their time.

This bill deals with substances as listed in schedules I through IV and involves those substances that: "when introduced into our bodies produce a stimulant, depressant and/or hallucinogenic effect".

I have some concerns regarding the clarity and the continuity of the intent in some areas of this bill. It is a large bill and to illustrate my point I will select a few sections to indicate this lack of clarity or continuity.

Commencing with section 23 and a few thereafter, this section involves the disposing of controlled substances. The bill states, and I paraphrase, that any person may apply to the justice in writing and within 60 days of the seizure date of the substances for their return. If the justice is satisfied a person applying is the lawful owner or legally entitled to possession of the substance, and if the minister does not have reasonable grounds regarding the safety of the substance and the justice agrees that the substance need not be disposed of, then the substance will be returned to the legally recognized owner.

The minister can do this also in another situation and in that case the legal owner gets paid for the amount of the drugs. Considering this disposal when a legal owner is recognized, if the substance here is not required as evidence, the bill provides for the owner, if he or she wishes, to give consent to have the minister dispose of the substance.

On the other hand the bill does not appear to provide this option to the owner if the substance is required for evidence. He or she gets it back. This could be an oversight or it could be an intent.

Other areas lacking clarity are sections 28 and 25. In section 28: "The minister may cause to be destroyed, on notification of the Attorney General, any illegally produced plant from which a substance under schedule I, II or III may be extracted". The decision is made by the minister and the plant can be disposed of by informing the Attorney General before any controlled substance is produced from it.

It is assumed that in this scenario the plant has been seen by the minister as a potential public health or a safety hazard. In section 25, if the minister has reasonable grounds to believe that the controlled substance constitutes a potential security or health and safety hazard, notice is given to the Attorney General again but at this point a justice is required to be satisfied with the minister's belief before the substance will be ordered forfeited to the crown for the minister to dispose of. In this case it appears that a justice is making the decision to have the drug disposed of.

Here it appears that the minister has the authority to dispose of the plants before the components become controlled substances. Once they become controlled substances the agreement from a justice must also be obtained. This may be the intent and if so I recommend a little more clarity or rationale to eliminate the questioning of this concept.

To leave the disposal section of the bill, I would like to look at the first few sections, specifically sections 2 and 3. These seem to allow for some substances not listed in the schedules to fall within the jurisdiction of the proposed act based on either their chemical composition or their effect on the human body or both.

This could be the beginning of potential problems in that the medical practitioner or the pharmacist or some other medical person is left with the decision as to whether the particular substance not listed in the schedules could or would not be considered a controlled substance.

Making this decision based on the chemical composition of the substance may be straightforward. Making the decision based on the effects on the human body is not. An example that comes to mind would be a substance that may on occasions in some people produce side effects that could be seen to fall within the parameters of the bill as stated now and may on the other hand not produce those side effects in other people.

I assume the intent of these sections of the bill is to provide a control mechanism for those substances created between the updating of the schedules, that those substances that may indeed end up as being classified as controlled substances when the schedules are updated. In this regard, I recommend that mechanisms be built into the bill that allow for frequent updating of the schedules without having to review or address the entire bill or act each time.

One possible solution may be the removal of the schedules which list the substances by name, which are from the actual content of the bill and appended to the bill and yet have a detailed description of the types of substances that would be listed on the schedules. Have that within the bill.

There are a couple of other aspects that I would like to address quickly. I am running short of time. One is the monitoring of prescription records and this is presently being done by Canada's bureau of dangerous drugs. I believe the data are submitted once every 60 days. The bill tends to suggest they would be submitted every 30 days.

I would question or wonder about the feasibility of this as an increased workload for both those submitting the data and those receiving the data, and if indeed receiving the data more frequently would enhance the effectiveness of the monitoring of, and thus more control over, these adverse situations.

The second clarification needed is in relation to criminal charges. Apparently the bill provides for criminal charges to be laid if a person is in possession of drugs that are in schedules I and II. If they are in possession of drugs that are in schedule III the intent for trafficking would have to be proven.

In closing, I would have to oppose this bill based on lack of clarity in a number of areas.

Also at this time I would like to propose an amendment to the motion. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:

"Bill C-7, an act respecting the control of certain drugs, their precursors and other substances and to amend certain other acts and repeal the Narcotic Control Act in consequence thereof, be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs."