John McKay

[Child Poverty, November 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today is national child day. The government has taken a number of steps to ensure that children in Canada do not live in poverty. Surely the best way to ensure that children do not live in poverty is for Canadians to have jobs so they can provide for their own children.

Can the Minister of Human Resources Development tell this House what steps he has taken to ensure that all Canadians can work and provide for their children?

[Supply, November 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question. Ontario had its CHST cash moneys reduced something in the order of 4% vis-à-vis the overall budget.

What the hon. member needs to know is that in 1995 the federal government provided 19% of the budget for Ontario. In 1996 it provided 19% of the budget for Ontario; also with 1997 and 1998.

The overall percentage stayed exactly the same. Where the viciousness of these social policies comes into play is a philosophical commitment to reduce taxes in priority to all else.

When that happens, I argue that the federal government has its overall supervisory responsibility for this nation to fix the province with the responsibilities as set out in the Canada Health Act, to adhere to those principles and to make those principles for each province.

If someone goes from Prince Edward Island to Quebec to Ontario to British Columbia, they can expect a level of health care that is universal and accessible, et cetera. That is the role of the federal government.

When the federal government cuts back transfers but in percentage terms it is exactly the same, I argue that it is the viciousness of the policies of this government that creates these horrible intersections which result in tragedies for our citizens. I will not speak for Quebec. I will simply speak for Ontario.

[Supply, November 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I will read the motion which I thank the hon. member opposite for bringing. It states:

That this House endorses the provincial consensus reached in Saskatoon on August 7, 1998, that the federal government must restore, via the existing provisions of the Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST), its contributions to front-line health-care services, starting with a payment of at least $2 billion, given that the federal government has already recorded an accumulated surplus of $10.4 billion for the first six months of the 1998-99 fiscal year.

The effect of the motion is to increase the CHST by approximately $2 billion.

There is a block transfer that already occurs of about $26 billion in tax points and cash to the provinces. The expectation is that over the next few years that will increase to about $28.5 billion.

While the cash floor remains static, the tax point portion is increasing and it increases quite dramatically for some provinces, particularly the province of Ontario, which is where I am from.

The other beauty of the CHST is that it addresses a long-standing grievance of some of the provinces, particularly the more prosperous provinces, that they were not getting a fair share of the transfer on a per capita basis. Over the course of the program, namely into the year 2002, that inequity in distribution on a per capita basis will in fact be addressed.

This brings me to the Ontario situation because that is the province from which I hail and about which I care deeply.

Ontario has received a reduced portion of the cash transfer. For Ontario that translates this year as a reduction of approximately $1.2 billion. The amount of $1.2 billion on its overall budget of $50 billion roughly translates into something in the order of 3% to 4%. That is what it means to Ontario, a reduced cash floor of the CHST of about 3% to 4%. When that is compared with the ill advised tax cuts it is in fact a negligible amount of money.

The philosophy of the reformatory government in my province is such that it puts tax cuts ahead of almost anything, including, I would argue, fiscally conservative and sound principles like reducing the debt, or even getting a handle on the deficit, both of which it has ignored. It has ratcheted up the debt over the course of its mandate to something in the order of $30 billion. That amount on an overall annual budget of $50 billion, to my way of thinking, is somewhat less than prudent fiscal management.

This is why increasing the CHST, particularly to the province of Ontario, in my view, is somewhat problematic. Our problem, from a federal government standpoint, is that we cannot trust it. We can get no real assurance that even if we were to agree to a $2 billion transfer, or Ontario's portion of that $2 billion transfer, that it would be applied to where we think the Canadian people want it applied, namely, to medical services.

Our fear is that it will simply go to backfill ill-conceived tax cuts. We cannot see how this will go to the legitimate needs of the people of Ontario.

I wish to let you know, Madam Speaker, that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Thornhill.

I would also like to tell a story about how these policies have played out on the ground in my riding. These are ill-conceived policies. This story is about how Ontario's housing policy contributes to homelessness, how its medical policy puts people on the street who should never be put on the street and for whom there is no private market alternative. It is naive in the extreme to think that the private market would pick up some of these people. It is also a story about how Ontario has devastated our hospitals.

The nation was transfixed with the death of a police officer over the course of the summer. The death of that particular police officer occurred in my riding. It was a tragic event, but let me explain the background.

The two women who are accused in that matter were initially residents of a medical facility in Toronto. With the cutbacks they were put on the street. Because my riding houses approximately 1,000 homeless people every night, who are largely there due to dubious government policies, these women ended up in my riding. Shortly thereafter they were transferred to another facility in St. Catharines, but for reasons best known to them they returned to the riding on that fateful night.

These are people who are in need of medication. These are people who should not be on the street. They came to the riding and went to the local hospital. They had a psychotic episode. They refused treatment. When they left the hospital they walked 150 metres across the street and are now accused of murdering that police officer.

To give some graphic illustration of why this is an intersection of such vicious social policies, I will tell the House about this particular hospital. This hospital is situated very close to the 401. It was originally designed for trauma. The expectation was that with a freeway there would be trauma incidents.

When the ambulance driver came to service the bleeding police officer, who was probably almost dead at that point, he made the decision that that hospital had inadequate resources and that he would not drive 150 metres across the parking lot, but would drive the ambulance another 25 minutes to downtown Toronto in order to help the police officer.

This is a vicious intersection of a policy regarding homelessness, a policy regarding rental, a policy regarding how medical facilities are staffed and funded. These are the reasons that we in Ontario feel very uncomfortable about transferring any additional funds to the Government of Ontario because we are not satisfied that the moneys will be used for what they were intended. These are very problematic issues for members from Ontario.

Health care is important to the government. The very first thing the Government of Canada did once its fiscal house was in order was to increase the cash floor for the Canada health and social transfer. This move marked the end of cuts and signalled the priority we place on health care.

In the government's economic statement the finance minister said that the concerns related to the strengthening of medicare will be addressed. He said no one can take on the challenges of a new economy while preoccupied with the availability of basic health care, no parent of an ill child and no child of an aging parent.

I have tried to put this matter of quality of care in context and the assessment in the proper context. This means making our system more responsive to and responsible for Canadians. The government has made it clear that health care is a very high priority. The Prime Minister has said that the federal government intends in our next major reinvestment to deal with the subject of health. The Minister of Health is committed to working in collaboration with all the provinces, including Ontario.

[Organized Crime, November 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, last week federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice met in Regina.

Recognizing that organized crime is a serious and growing problem in Canada, the ministers unanimously endorsed a joint statement on organized crime. The statement underscores the ministers' commitment to work together in partnership to combat this problem.

Under the leadership of the federal government the statement builds on work already done to develop an effective strategy. The statement brings Canada one step closer to having a Canada-wide plan against organized crime.

But ministers recognize that no single group can win this battle alone. To win the fight we must work together, pool our resources and co-ordinate our efforts to become more organized than those who prey on our communities.

That is why the principles endorsed last week represent such a milestone for Canada. They represent the resolve of governments, officials and law enforcement agencies to put their differences aside, to work together to make Canadians—

[Transit Passes, November 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for the motion. The government should consider making employer provided transit passes a tax exempt benefit.

I must admit that when this initiative came across my desk I thought it was a provocative thought, so I enter into the debate with that kind of mindset. These are interesting initiatives from members who are trying to address real and valid issues that exist in society.

This is a bit of a peephole reaction to creating tax legislation. One is forever looking through a narrow glass and not necessarily getting the entire picture. I offer this as more of a response than a criticism. It does not address the fact that all employers do not offer transit passes. It does not do anything for those people who use transit who are not employees, people such as seniors, students and the unemployed. It does not do anything for these folks. I am not entirely convinced that we can confer a certain kind of benefit on one class of citizen without expanding the benefit to other classes of citizen, all of whom are transit riders.

I would like to see a proposal, if this was the kind of direction in which the government wished to go, where the benefits of using transit were readily apparent and were of some use to all classes of citizens.

The second consideration that bothers me is the peephole approach to public policy. Municipal, federal and provincial governments already give substantial subsidies to transit.

It is my understanding that at this point in time approximately 48% of transit costs are subsidized costs. Ridership or public riding contributes only 52%. This brings me to one of the more critical components of the argument of my friend opposite, that there is an implicit assumption that with this exemption ridership will increase.

It was not clear to me in debate or in reading his support materials that ridership would increase. Again I react anecdotally here. I would have thought that employees who are using transit already will not necessarily increase the ridership. They will continue to use the transit regardless of whether or not they get a tax exempt benefit. I am not at all persuaded that ridership will be increased. If ridership is not increased, we do not achieve what we want to achieve in terms of harm reduction to the environment or trying to meet Kyoto targets.

I would ask the hon. member to think, if this debate goes forward, about the issue of how he can give assurances that ridership will increase. The only clear evidence at this point is that tax revenues will be reduced. I do not find this argument to be a persuasive one.

We all wish to reduce greenhouse gases and to meet our Kyoto requirements. The linkage is not necessarily demonstrable. The assumption is that cars will be taken off the road—and I hope that is true—by giving this exemption. If cars are taken off the road our greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced and we will be able to meet our Kyoto requirements.

The linkage again is not clear in my mind. This is in some respects an article of faith rather than a clear evidential linkage. Those are the criticisms I have of the motion. As can be seen in the phrasing of my criticisms, I am not at all opposed to the thought or to the general direction. I would like to suggest that possibly the exemption may be only one way of achieving the benefit the hon. member wishes to obtain. There may well be better ways to achieve these laudable goals by not taking a kind of peephole approach to little pieces and sections of the Income Tax Act which in and of themselves may create inconsistencies that are not necessarily anticipated.

Again I laud the hon. member for his initiative. As I said, when this initiative came across my desk I thought it was a good idea. It was not one that readily yielded criticism. I offer my observations to him in the form of encouragement to a fellow parliamentarian.

[Criminal Code, November 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. member. It had precious little to do with Bill C-51. He seemed not to be interested in addressing the issues raised by Bill C-51. In particular he did not address the two issues I raised. He did not address some of the more profound social issues.

As to the specific issue of when the legislation will be introduced, that is well within the prerogative of the minister. She has generated fairly substantive support based on a report from the justice committee. I expect to see that drafting in a timely fashion, as she would say.

[Criminal Code, November 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his good question. It is not something to which I have an immediate answer. If governments back away from these addictions, these sources of revenue, other problems will spin out. The classic example is that of mafia activity in these areas because they are so lucrative.

I do not know that there is not another way to deal with those issues. The difficulty is correlating the family-social-individual breakdown to the availability of these products and activities and their decriminalization. I am being perfectly candid. I do not have that answer.

The environmental movement has recognized this. A Harvard professor has recognized that damage to the environment can be quantified. If Kyoto is anything, it is nothing other than a glorified accounting system so those kinds of issues can be addressed.

I do not know why good thinking people could not arrive at some sort of accounting system that would bear some similarity to the quantification of environmental damage. How could we quantify damage to individuals, society, families, et cetera, over that portion of time?

[Criminal Code, November 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I believe this bill deserves the support of parliament in large measure. It is an omnibus bill and, by definition, an omnibus bill is a housekeeping bill and can in fact be quite tedious.

A particular provision that caught my eye with respect to this bill was the homicide and criminal negligence provision, the year and a day provision, which permits prosecution even though the victim may have survived beyond a year and a day by virtue of the advances of medical science. That makes perfect common sense. It makes all kinds of sense, given our present state.

However, may I suggest with respect to an omnibus bill that the devil is in the details. I would like to, if I may, draw the attention of the House to one of those details, namely, gaming. The apparent effect of the amendment would be to amend the criminal code with respect to international cruise ships that are exempted under certain provisions of the Criminal Code.

In addition, provincial governments under certain limited circumstances would be able to conduct and manage dice games without the heavy hand of the Criminal Code upon them. Apparently this has been a request put forward by both Ontario and Quebec.

I would like to address this addiction by all levels of governments to the business of gambling. The province where I come from, Ontario, raises something in excess of $2.4 billion of its revenues from this addiction. This translates into approximately 5% of all of the revenues of the government.

I could stand to be corrected on my numbers but that is my recollection from newspaper articles.

The governments of Canada and the Government of Ontario in particular are heavily addicted to revenue generated by way of gambling. It is certainly within my memory that this was not always a source of revenue for any government. Governments have now become dependent on their gambling fix in order to meet the ever growing demands on their treasuries.

This bill facilitates that addiction and, I would argue, is not necessarily a public policy we should encourage.

Gambling by definition is largely a recreational pursuit enjoyed by a great number of people and abused by a relatively small number of people.

There is, however, a parallel to the government addiction to revenue generated from alcohol. Alcohol is clearly enjoyed by a large number of people and abused by a small number of people. However, in the decriminalization of that activity, we have diffused the criminality associated with the consumption of alcohol from the streets of Chicago in the prohibition days to the streets of all our communities.

I dare say that if any member asked a police officer what is the greatest contributor to crime in our society, that police officer might well answer the criminality associated with the consumption of alcohol.

The effect that we intend, mainly the reduction in criminality with respect to the illegal disruption of alcohol, has been replaced with criminality of other forms, mainly drunk driving, spousal assault, et cetera.

In the decriminalization of any activities, society in general and governments in particular frequently do not calculate the bottom line, cost to the populace, while they merrily rake in the revenue from the activity. This is most readily observable in the revenues generated from alcohol and probably less observable in the revenues generated from cigarettes.

However, I would submit that the revenues that are generated from both those activities do not go back into serving the populace that has the addiction by virtue of the ready availability of those products. In other words, revenues raised in alcohol and cigarettes far exceed government expenditures for those members in society who become addicted to those products.

In a perverse way, governments become the handmaidens in the addictions of their citizens.

It is my view that governments should not be participating in creating addictions among their citizens. I would argue that there is a parallel being developed here. As governments decriminalize certain activities they create a dependency in a certain portion of the populace and that dependency is not compensated by making those revenues generated by the decriminalization available to those who are addicted.

Therefore governments in general and particularly the Government of Ontario become handmaidens in the addiction while not giving any hand with respect to the help for the addiction. This is in my view a rank form of hypocrisy and bad public policy.

Time does not permit me to give example after example of individuals and families ruined by their addictions to these social pastimes. I would further argue that the hypocrisy of government cuts out its high moral ground of leadership and in fact erodes its ability to lead the populace in directions for society which are good directions.

If I may be permitted a small illustration, prior to becoming a member of parliament I was on the board of an organization called Christian Indigenous Development Overseas. The concept was relatively simple. We lent money to micro enterprises in third worlds. We lent money to people who had no security. We lent money to the people who were the poorest of the poor. We had projects in the Philippines, in Columbia and in Jamaica, and no sensible banker would ever lend money to these folks.

Our message, however, was quite simple. If you work hard, if you are an honest person, you will succeed. When we started this project we were assisted by CIDA and by the Wild Rose Foundation of Alberta. For every dollar we raised our funds were matched somewhere in the order of three to four dollars. It was a very successful formula and widely acknowledged as a good use of resources.

However, the Wild Rose Foundation decided to generate its revenues in part from gambling activities. As a funding organization we questioned whether we could receive funding generated from gambling activities. It seemed to us that we were being hypocritical. How could we use the funds that were generated in a somewhat less than honest way from something other than hard work and then give the funds to people who were desperately in need and to whom we were giving the message work hard, be honest and you will succeed? We felt we were being hypocrites.

When the Wild Rose Foundations declined to withdraw from gambling activities we felt we had no alternative but to withdraw our request for funding.

Just as we felt we were being hypocrites, this bill puts an additional layer of hypocrisy on all governments. There has been virtually no debate with respect to the larger social policy issue. While I support the bill and will in the end vote for the bill, it is my view that the social policy issue needs to be addressed.

The addictions of governments to revenues generated from these kinds of sources versus the benefits to society affected by the decriminalization of these kinds of activities is a broad social debate and one that is ongoing.

However, I suggest that an analogous ground might well be to how corporations prepare the balance sheets. Frequently the picture of a business generally on a balance sheet is quite limited. One has assets, one has liabilities, one has income and one has expenses. What the environmental movement is teaching us is that there is more to the bottom line than what appears on a balance sheet.

I suggest that the analogy is appropriate here. There is more to the bottom line than what appears on the balance sheet. We do not know what social damage is caused by our governments' addition to these kinds of revenues.

I would argue that in gambling we do not put on to the bottom line the actual cost. We do not know what the impact of gambling is on the populace at large and the cost it has to society.

To carry the analogy further, government similarly has a balance. It has revenues and expenses. I will not get into assets and liabilities because there the analogy really breaks down because of the way governments count assets and recognize liabilities. However, we do not really know what the social costs or the welfare costs or the addiction costs are to society. It certainly only minimally impacts the bottom line of governments but it does impact us all in society. It hits society's bottom line but it does not hit governments' bottom line.

As I said, I will support this bill because there is a lot of good work in it and it tightens up areas that need to be tightened, but the whole area of gaming needs to be addressed by parliament.

[Liz Warden, October 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in this House today to congratulate Liz Warden who swam a personal best and won a silver medal in the 400 metre individual medley at the 16th Commonwealth Games in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, in September.

As originally a member of the Scarborough swim club and presently with the University of Toronto, Liz represented Canada with pride and accomplished a great feat.

She is now training to go to the World Cup in Edmonton on November 28 as a member of the Canadian swim team. Liz was telling my daughter and I that she practices six hours a day.

I congratulate Liz. She is a role model for what dedication, hard work and perseverance can achieve. Canada is proud of her. I wish her luck in her next event.

[Supply, October 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I will speak to that issue. What the students were concerned about were human rights abuses in Indonesia. On that issue all government members are on the same page with the students. There is terrible abuse of human rights and it is something about which all members should be legitimately concerned.

But what the debate has focused on is the trivia, the irrelevance of the issue. Talking about getting our priorities out of whack, this is a clear statement of priorities that are completely out of whack.