Debates of May 9th, 1995

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Mackenzie-agriculture; the hon. member for Bourassa-immigration.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity to speak on the issue of MP pensions.

I represent a constituency where there is a very large number of retired Canadians. Part of my constituency is described as God's waiting room because of the number of elderly people who live there. From the responses I get I can see that the make-up of the constituency is changing.

There is a lot of concern, not only from the elderly people in my constituency but from those in the middle age category and the younger people who live there. I take a bit of ribbing from my colleagues because I have developed a two way communication with my constituents. I often have stacks and stacks of letters from them, letting me know what they have to say.

My latest return had over 2,800 responses. The most consistent concern of my constituents is the overbloated MP pension plan. In their comments I hear a real contempt for members of Parliament and their overbloated pension plan. I would like to share some of their comments.

One constituent says: "I think government pensions are too early for too few years and too much. We cannot afford it. The general public do not get pensions like that". Another says: "MP pensions should start at age 65. MP pension plans should be in line with the general public. Cuts to MP pensions are not deep enough. They are whittling away at our pensions but are still feathering their own nests. We worked hard and long to save for our retirement but we might as well have sat in a bar and drank our savings. To this government it seems sloth is rewarded and hard work and responsibility are penalized. Let the MPs cut their excessive pensions before they cut ours."

"Why do government pension plans still totally out perform private plans? How can they say they want to increase eligibility to 67, yet they are eligible at 55? MP pension plan changes and cuts are not nearly enough, in fact are quite inadequate and presumably made to prevent rebellion. Your disgusted taxpayers are expected to make large sacrifices to help pay off the huge debt."

"MP pension changes must be more drastic." No one should be allowed to have pensions before the age of 60. Changes should be retroactive to include all former members of Parliament.

"The MP pension plan is a joke. The proposed changes are a joke. Would Svend and Ms. Copps make well over $1 million pulling down a pension from the private sector? Could you, Val?"

"Government pensions should be equivalent to the private sector. On members of Parliament pensions further cuts should be made here. Why should MPs receive higher pensions than one would receive in private industry? Changes should have been more drastic and no pension should be paid out before 55, regardless of when the MP started. MP pensions should be in line with industry". I could go on. I took one small handful from the stack I have.

I repeat, the one consistent message I get from my constituents is they will not accept another change to the pension plan that leaves it as bloated and as unresponsive to the demands of the constituency, that leadership be shown by the members of Parliament in the House. They expect if sacrifices are to be asked of them there should be like sacrifices from the people sitting in the House.

Like my associate, I will be opting out of the MP pension plan. I have given notice to my constituents that I will be opting out of the plan. I have received many phone calls and many letters supporting that decision. They do not feel I should be here without any kind of compensation. However, they feel the pension plan is asking too much from the ordinary taxpayer. I have to agree with them.

The Reform Party has come up with a very plausible pension plan that would make plenty of sense not only to members of Parliament but to the people we expect to pay for the pension plan. I suggest the government side take a close look at the alternatives placed before it from the Reform Party; a plan that would be adequate, a plan that would be fair and responsive to the years of service MPs put in. That would not be any more than what the person in the private sector of the people in my constituency can expect.

I hear from some of the seniors in my constituency that many of them are retired on $975 a month after 30 years of working for the same company. How can I possibly defend a pension plan that allows a person to collect after 55, that allows individuals who sat in the House for over six years to collect millions of dollars over a period of time up until they are 75. How can I defend that? I cannot.

I ask the House to please reconsider the bill before us now and to be responsive to the thousands and thousands of Canadians asking the House to show leadership and to show members are responsive to what Canadians are asking for.

It disturbs me to hear the responses and the comments from across the House. They do not seem to feel there are any expectations of them to make this kind of sacrifice. It disturbs me these people sitting in the House of Commons who have been put here to represent Canadians in their constituencies are not listening to what Canadians are saying. They are certainly not representing Canadian views in the House of Commons.

I hope before the debate is over they will get the message from their constituencies. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to share my constituents' concern with the House. I hope their message is shared across the country and listened to by the Liberal government.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I join the debate with some reluctance. I was very proud to be elected to the House and to be a member of Parliament. When I ran and became involved in politics I felt one of the most important things I could and should bring to the House is leadership.

I knew then and I know today our country is facing some very difficult times. We are into a period of financial restructuring in our country which will make what has gone on in the last year or will go on in this next year seem like child's play. Sooner or later we will have to come face to face with the reality that our country is $550 billion in debt and in the hole at the rate of $120 million a day.

If our country did not have this onerous debt then I do not think the pension problem would be necessarily as fractious as it is. The debate has brought out a level of meanness in the House which has not really been here in much of the debate that has taken place, even though there have been some very contentious issues debated.

When we talk about pensions and income we are talking about where people really live. When we take the facade off the role or the life of a member of Parliament every one of us has exactly the same problems and wishes as every other Canadian. Every one of us is making a mortgage payment or a car payment or has a child in university or has someone else they are looking after. Every one of us has financial obligations.

Being a member of Parliament does not mean one's life automatically magically changes. Many people in the House make a substantial financial sacrifice to come to the House. What happens is people are making less than they did before they were elected.

Everyone having been elected knew that before they got the job and should not complain about it once they have it. We went into this with our eyes wide open. Why should members of Parliament be prepared to make the sacrifice? That is the essence of the debate.

As our country goes into this period of travail as we learn to live within our means the people in positions of leadership have to exhibit leadership by taking the first hit by leading by example. I do not think any Canadian begrudges a fair income or a fair standard of living or a fair remuneration to a member of Parliament. However, they do not want to see members of Parliament living far beyond what is available to anybody else in a similar circumstance. Why are there two sets of rules, one for the law makers and one for everyone else? That is precisely the reason Parliament has brought disrepute upon itself, having one set of rules for everybody else and one for Parliament.

The basic question is does the remuneration package in any way help or hinder the development of good governance in our country?

In my private life I would ask the question from a business perspective. Does the remuneration package offered to people in this business help or hinder the development of the business? Does it attract and retain the very best people or does it retain people we do not want to retain who perhaps should move on somewhere else? Does it lead to the very highest ideals or does it lead to mediocrity?

I will pick up on a theme presented earlier in the debate that perhaps because the salary level is low, which has been said by the Prime Minister time and time again and others in the House, the pension is abnormally high because the salary is abnormally low.

I suspect our remuneration package does more to bring mediocrity to the House than it does to bring a level of commitment and excellence we should all hope for. The pension is such a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow any normal human being will be affected in their day to day decisions with how they can go about getting into that pot of gold.

The question is when we come here and make a decision, are we making the decisions best for the country in the long run? Are we making decisions best for the next generation or are we making decisions for the next election? Are we statesmen or politicians?

If our decisions are motivated by winning the next election rather than doing what is right for the next generation, I submit we are politicians. We will never be statesmen. The pension is so rich human nature would automatically cause people to think: "How should I respond in this situation? Will it help me or hinder me in the next election? Will it help or hinder me within my caucus? If I go against this program, am I likely not to get a nomination? Am I likely to be pushed out of caucus? Am I likely to be dropped from a committee? What would happen to my image if I am not a team player?"

That is the reason members of Parliament should be fairly compensated. They should look after their own pension arrangements like everyone else. We should be well paid and we should look after our pensions.

We should have a dollar for dollar contribution to buy an RRSP, just like everyone else. The decisions we make that affect us should not hold us harmless from the effect of these decisions on the economy as a whole.

If we in the House and those who came before us manage to mismanage our economy to the point at which 35 cents of every dollar collected by the federal government goes to paying interest on money we have already spent, should these people be rewarded with a pension for life? Hardly.

Should people be motivate to be re-engaged to have a political life because of the pension, which begs the question whether our function as members of Parliament should be to act as a board of directors. Should we be micromanaging the economy as we are wont to do?

Why all of a sudden does Parliament have to sit 180 days of the year? Why can we not retain our real lives and come here just enough to be a board of directors and have a professional civil service actually run the country?

I suspect as human nature drives this remuneration package none of us on any side of the House is perfect. What on earth is the point of the government's hiring outside third party arbitrators to make decisions on remuneration for members of Parliament and then ignoring the advice?

It is a pox on our Houses. How can we be determining what our income or remuneration should be? Why can that not be done by an impartial qualified third party and accept the results that come from that impartial third party? Why should it be done internally?

I want to close with a spirit of optimism because I have great faith in our country. I still have great faith in Parliament. Remember, what is done today can be corrected tomorrow, and that is the beauty of Parliament.

Although the legislation will pass, there will be another dawn. There will be a tomorrow. In the closing stanza of "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner", the poem that says water, water everywhere and not a drop to drink, the parable of the story is he will rise upon the morn, a sadder and a wiser man.

I suspect that the result of the Liberal government, having had the opportunity to do the right thing and taking a half measure, hesitant step and calling it an achievement, will rise upon the morn and rue the day sadder and wiser at the next election.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, normally it is a great pleasure for me to rise to speak in the House, but today I find the need to speak to this bill is not much of a pleasure.

In 1952 the Liberal government of Louis St. Laurent introduced the members retiring allowance. He described it as actuarially sound and a matter that would operate without any further charge on the public funds than the matching of the contributions to be made by all members of Parliament. That is the way it should work.

How in the world did it get so far off track? Today the taxpayers contribute 80 per cent and the members of Parliament contribute 20 per cent.

Only a government with its head in the sand would ask Canadians, who have the fastest growing personal tax burden in the industrialized world, to shoulder the burden of deficit reduction without first putting its own house in order.

Bill C-85 tells Canadians that the majority of the people they elected to Parliament in 1993 care more about their personal financial security than they do about the deficit or the tax burden.

Canadians will soon learn that while all 52 Reform MPs are opting out of the pension plan, only one Liberal MP has the fortitude to say no. Canadians will soon realize that the majority of members they elected to Parliament do not really care about the debt or the tax burden ordinary Canadians have to face. They talk the talk, but when it affects them personally, and when it is going to affect their retirement, they quickly seek refuge back at the trough.

Pension reform was a major issue in the last election, and I suspect it will be in the next election. When my colleague was quoting from "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner", a line occurred to me as well: and like a cross around my neck the albatross was hung. This is an albatross the Liberal government will have a difficult time getting off its neck.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Maybe we should call an election to find out.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Maybe we should. The hon. member suggests that there should be an election. I challenge him to call an election on this issue. It is an excellent idea.

They even boasted in the speech from the throne that pension reform was a plank in their platform. They have made a mockery of their own promises.

Bill C-85 was not at all what the Canadian taxpayers expected. Instead of real pension reform, the Liberal caucus agreed to protect senior MPs and youthful cabinet ministers, because it knows that when the Reform Party forms the next government, and it will, contrary to what my friend in the Bloc suggested, the Liberals will not be getting any patronage jobs to supplement their incomes.

They claim to have eliminated double dipping. However, even if they were to get a federal job, their pension benefits would keep on growing, thanks to inflation indexing.

I am amazed that with only two years left before the government has to face the Canadian electorate it would have the gall to introduce a bill that would give MPs a pension other Canadians can only dream of, especially since it is the average Canadian taxpayer who will have to pay for this now silver plated pension plan.

How much will they have to pay? They will have to pay plenty. For every dollar contributed by all those Liberals and Bloc MPs who are rushing to opt into the plan, the taxpayer contributes $3.50. It is hard to believe that the government is not embarrassed to boast about a reduction of 1 per cent in the accrual rate, from 5 per cent to 4 per cent. Wonderful, but it is still double what it is in the private sector.

Where else but in Parliament could one receive a pension for only six years of service and that pension would be indexed for life and payable starting at age 55? This is early retirement by anyone's standards.

In the private sector, only 22 per cent of the pension plans are adjusted automatically for inflation. It takes MPs only 19 years to qualify for a full pension. A person in the private sector would have to work for 35 years to be eligible for anything similar.

The Prime Minister attempts to justify this premium pension plan by saying that MPs have a difficult time readjusting to private life and finding jobs in the outside world. Surely to goodness they cannot have that much difficulty. If they do have that much difficulty, I fail to see how it could be the taxpayer's fault.

Often when we ask the Prime Minister to justify his continued support for this cash for life scheme he compares MP pensions to hockey players' salaries. For one thing, we are talking about salaries, as opposed to pension plans; let us get that straight. For another thing, I believe the Liberals are skating on very thin ice on this one, because in Winnipeg we saw what happened when the players demanded too much. The players and those who hired them parted company. On the next election day the Canadian taxpayers will be telling the players in the government they would just as soon part company with them.

The provincial legislators in Prince Edward Island and in Alberta realized that the taxpayers could not afford to support them forever and have scrapped their pension plans. In Manitoba, Premier Filmon promised to cancel the pension plan and replace it with a registered retirement savings plan arrangement.

We are not suggesting that members of Parliament should not be properly paid for the job we do. We all know that we work hard here at this job and that we are eligible and we deserve a decent salary for it. But let us separate salary from pensions. The Reform Party does not say that members of Parliament are not deserving of some sort of retirement benefit as well. Let us have a retirement benefit that we can take in good conscience and we can look our constituents in the eye and say yes, I contributed and yes, you contributed; it was equal and it was dollar for dollar and we do not have the feeling that we are taking advantage of the people who pay our salary and put us here in the first place.

Canadians are being asked by their government to do with less. In the vast majority of cases Canadians can accept that. They can accept that there is not enough money to fund all the government programs that have been created over the last 30 years. They cannot accept the excuses offered by this government to continue to fund a pension plan that Canada cannot afford. The government has to get its own financial house in order before asking Canadians to support them for life.

During the 1993 election campaign I promised the constituents of Wetaskiwin that I would not participate in the existing gold-plated pension plan. As a matter of fact, one of the first things we did when we got to Ottawa was to go over to pay and benefits and sign a declaration there saying that we were paying into this pension plan only under duress and that we had no intention whatsoever of collecting.

This is not something we came up with in the last few hours so that we could debate it in the House. It is something we signed at an early date because we in good conscience did not want to participate in a pension plan of this type.

On February 24 and during our annual general meeting, when I explained to my constituents how meagre the changes in this bill were, I told them there was only one acceptable clause in it, and that was the one that would allow me to remain outside of the pension plan.

I question the intention of the government. Perhaps I am treading on thin ground here, but I think there was some malice in that very clause. It was aimed directly at the Reform Party. The idea of course would be that some would opt out and some would not and it would effectively split our caucus. I can say that

this has not happened and that our caucus has decided individually and collectively that we will opt out of the program.

Members have probably deduced by now that I am opting out of this plan with its silver lining. I recommend that anybody in the House who plans to be here for more than one term follow suit and do the same.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the guiding principles of leadership is that the leader set an example. People despise double standards, especially with regard to leadership.

In the past, Canadian governments have been marked in their leadership and have been characterized by inaccessibility, arrogance, a disregard for the masses, in fact contempt for the masses, some corruption, and rule from an ivory tower mentality, a them versus us mentality. The proof was in the last election, when the government of the day was in no uncertain terms turfed from its position in government into an insignificant number in the House.

[An hon. member]

It will happen again.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

What were the Canadian people saying in that election? We want democracy. We want to be heard. We want fairness, accountability, transparency, and above all else we want honesty from our elected officials. We want our elected officials to represent the people and we want to do for ourselves what we do unto others.

The single most objectionable thing that typifies the last government and in some ways applies to this government is the MP pension plan, this gold plated plan, which is unlike those in the private sector.

In response to the dogged efforts of the Reform Party, the government has finally buckled under and decided to revamp the plan. Is that what it truly did? Not at all. It brought out a plan that is mere it window dressing. We have seen a lot of it.

Yesterday when we spoke in the House on the OAS and CPP bill we saw much the same thing. Let me explain why. What happens with the new plan? The accrual rate decreases, but it only decreases from 5 per cent to 4 per cent. This is still double the rate in the private sector.

Furthermore, the Income Tax Act says that there can only be a maximum of 2 per cent. Therefore, the plan put forth by the government and the preceding plan are illegal.

The new plan is fully indexed to inflation. Do we see that in the private sector? Not at all. In the private sector, 80 per cent of plans are not indexed to inflation.

What is the new minimum age? It is 55, not 60. That is fine to an extent. However there is no decrease in the payments that are down if anybody collects before the age of 60. Again I bring your attention to the Income Tax Act.

The Income Tax Act says that pensions must be reduced by at least 3 per cent per year if collected before age 60. Does this occur in the plan before us?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Does it occur in the new plan?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

What does this do? It is another MP pension plan that contravenes the Income Tax Act and is completely illegal.

This new plan decreases the contribution rate from MPs from 11 per cent to 9 per cent. What does that do? It increases the pay that MPs take home. This plan is at least two times as lucrative as private sector plans and continues to contravene the Income Tax Act in at least two cases. Therefore that makes it completely and utterly illegal.

We in the Reform Party, as all members, have been given the chance by the government to opt out. What happened? To a person, the members of my party have opted out of this plan. When many of us, myself included, were given the sheets to sign for our pension plan when we came here in January 1994, we wrote on the top that we would not sign out of protest because we would not be a part of this plan.

It was an election promise we made and one that we keep. It is not only we who will opt out of this plan. There are a handful of hearty souls from the government side who, under duress and intense pressure from their own people, have decided to hold strong and represent the wishes of their constituents and opt out.

Are the members of the Bloc Quebecois, a group that is committed to destroying the country and tearing it apart, to be members of this plan? Absolutely. I find it completely hypocritical that these members are rushing to be members of a pension plan in a country they are running away from. Why does this group want to join a pension plan from a country that it wants to tear apart? It is hypocrisy. Its members should look in their souls and in the mirror when they decide to do this.

In this party, we propose not to be destructive but to be constructive. We have said all along that we want to be a part of the community, to join hands with the rest of the country to make it strong. One of the things that we can do is have the same pension plan as the people who voted for us.

We want to have the same pension plan as the private sector and in essence, lead by example. Therefore, we should collect

the MP pension plan at age 60 and decrease the contributions by the taxpayer. As one of my friends from my party just said, we should make it a one to one contribution. Above all else, let the MP control and manage his or her pension plan. It is interesting to reflect on this for a moment because it shows the the difference in mind set and philosophy that we in the Reform Party have to the government.

Government members believe they should get their lecherous tentacles into all aspects of people's lives from business to MP pensions. We in this party and the majority of Canadians believe that it is not the government members who should do the majority of things in the country, but people, individuals and private organizations are the ones who can best deal with the problems that affect them. Let government do what government does best and what the private sector cannot do and let the people and individuals do everything else. Our job is to empower the people to do that.

One of my colleagues was musing the other day about the so-called increase in pay. What he was really doing is trying to find ways of decreasing the cost to the taxpayer. He proposed abolishing the MP pension plan, abolishing the allowance but increasing the salary to compensate for this. He qualified this by saying that this does not in any way, shape or form represent the will or the wishes of this party.

Nobody in this party wants to increase the salaries of any one of us. The hon. member for Beaver River started off when she was a lone person in the House by voluntarily decreasing her salary by 10 per cent. She was the only individual in the House to do this. It is important to understand that out of the 295 members only one MP at that time did that. That MP was from the Reform Party of Canada.

Other things we have done that members of the other parties have not done is that we took the bull by the horns and tried to find out other constructive ways of saving the taxpayer money. We saved money on our flights by flying economy. We in my office managed to save the taxpayers at least $10,000 to $12,000 per year by flying economy and on cheap flights. If all of us were to do that we would save the taxpayers at least $3 million a year. We should look at that because it is certainly something constructive that we could do.

Many of our constituents have complained about this MP pension plan. Many of these people are individuals who fought in the last war, which we celebrated this week, and who have worked all of their lives only to have pensions of less than $1,000 a month. Furthermore, on that amount of money they are remorselessly taxed by the Canadian government. It is not something I would lay at this government's feet right now as it is something that has gone on for a long time.

I ask the government to look with compassion on those individuals who have made such a significant contribution to the backbone of the country. They have worked all their lives to make it the safe place that it is today.

I implore the government to lead by example. Give the people the confidence they need in their elected officials. As we saw in World War II, we came together to do great things, to defeat the fascism of Nazi Germany. That hope is not lost on us now. In 1995 we can all come together to build Canada, the greatest country in the world, to once again stand on its feet and be the middle power that it can be. We can only do that by coming together, leading by example and working together for the benefit and future of our wonderful country.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, during the election in 1993 I made one promise to my constituents. I promised that when I got to Ottawa I would take every opportunity to let their voice be heard. Therefore, I am pleased to have the opportunity. For all my Wild Rose friends out there in TV land or wherever they are, this is for you. My Wild Rose constituents say scrap the obnoxious, ridiculous pension plan of MPs. I agree with them wholeheartedly.

Yesterday school students from the county of Wheatland in my riding visited me. Some of my colleagues joined me and we had a great visit. I really have a hard time understanding how a member of Parliament could stand in front of a group of young people in today's times and say to them: "We have this huge debt of $550 billion. It will be $600 billion or more by the time this Parliament ends or maybe even more than that".

"Your future does not look too good. It will be very expensive to get an education because we are really in trouble financially. We are sorry about that. Probably the old age pension, the Canada pension and things of that nature which we have grown so accustomed to admiring and having in this country will be gone when you get my age, but that is just the way it goes. We really tried hard. Of course you won't mind, students", as I told them yesterday, "if I hang on to a pension, would you, that will provide me with several thousands of dollars during my old age while you will probably have nothing".

The students quickly told me how much they minded. I know that same message is loud and clear at any school. If any member wants to go to a school and has the nerve to tell the students exactly what the situation is and then turn around and tell them that he or she is well looked after, let us see how they respond back.

I have a funny feeling there are a lot of members in this Parliament that would not even dare do such a thing. That is a little too honest. That is a little too much up front.

When this Parliament first met the minister of human resources would stand up to talk about the one million children in the country living in poverty and how we had to address that. Eighteen months later, we are still talking about the one million children living in poverty. Let us give up our pensions, let us feed the hungry kids. Does that make sense? Not if you are greedy, it sure does not. If you are a greedy individual, you will accept this pension plan. We will hear the minister of human resources talk about hungry children again next year.

I received a call from an individual who works with the Children's Aid Society, a relief society. He asked if I would come to the House and encourage the members of Parliament who are flying around the country to give that up and donate the money to his children in Ottawa. They could sure use the extra few thousand dollars that is being spent.

Look at news items like: Goods news, MP junkets will not be cut. "We are going to Europe, Asia and Africa. Never mind, we are only $600 billion in the hole. We have hungry children all over Canada. Never mind, we are going to take these trips". What kind of leadership is that? Where are their hearts? Where are their minds?

[An hon. member]

They are greedy.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Greedy is right, the exact word. If we were to call a consultant to come into Parliament to address this group I am sure the consultant would not hesitate to say in order to set things in order, we had better start at the top and set an example.

Not a member in the House has not received a call from an old age pensioner who has said: "I do not know how I will make it. I have had another cutback and I cannot make it". I really doubt there is one member in the House that has never received a call like that. I cannot understand how any member can receive these call and say: We are doing all we can and in time things will change.

If we give ourselves pensions like these and then talk to an elderly person on the phone about what they are doing and what they are getting, we are being hypocritical. Talk about being hypocritical. Talk about being two faced. For heaven's sake, if you have a caring attitude then go to these communities, stand in front of the people on your own two feet and do what you were sent here to do. Look after the people of this country. They are expecting you to do that.

I am sure this consultant would say give up your pensions, it would be the smart thing to do. The consultant would probably say sell the aeroplanes, that would be the right thing to do. Do not go to Europe, Asia and Africa, do not need to; you can do without that. Feed the hungry; help the elderly; do your job". That is the attitude demonstrated over there of which Canadians are sick. I hope they would call an election tomorrow to demonstrate that same attitude.

I was the mayor of the town of Sundre back in the seventies. The council and I decided we would engage a group of citizens to determine what our remuneration should be. We left it in their hands. We were pleased with their decision and the community as a whole decided that is what we should receive.

I challenge the government. I challenge the Bloc Quebecois Party, the Liberal Party-I know the Reformers will be more than pleased to participate-to find a group of citizens to come to this place to determine what our salaries, our pensions and a few other things should be. After all, in case they have forgotten we work for them, let them decide.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Breast Cancer

[Audrey McLaughlin, NDP, Yukon, YT]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should provide core funding to ensure that all women diagnosed with breast cancer have access, through survivor led support groups, to information on the various treatments available in their community and local counselling services provided by peer support groups and survivors.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the motion today in the House of Commons because I know that all Canadians are concerned about this very serious health issue. However concern is not enough. It is necessary to put action and to put funds behind our desire for increased health resources for women. In particular, around the issue of breast cancer, the statistics are very clear on what is needed.

Mr. Speaker, you may know that two of my colleagues from the previous parliament, the former members for New Westminster and Mission-Coquitlam, worked tirelessly to have this House put research on breast cancer and support services for women with breast cancer on the top of its list of priorities.

They helped convince this House to embark on an important study regarding the issue in 1992. The same year, the Sub-committee on the Status of Women published its conclusions and a list of recommendations in a report entitled "Breast Cancer: Unanswered Questions". I have a copy of that report with me.

Unfortunately, I have to conclude that most of the questions raised at the time have remained unanswered. The members of the sub-committee made 49 recommendations, and I think it is important to revisit a few today. The sub-committee recommended that the federal government work with the provinces and territories to give the cancer research centres already in place in each region of the country the designation of centres of excellence.

The centres of excellence would be a sort of one-stop treatment and information centre for women diagnosed with breast cancer.

I cannot tell the House how many women I have spoken with who say they have lacked proper information on treatment and on treatment options. There is confusion even on things such as breast self-examination and the options generally available to women.

We need to concentrate our efforts and to pool our knowledge. The regional centres idea originally proposed by the committee would go a long way in centralizing and co-ordinating information.

The committee of 1992 also recommended that the federal government establish a 1-800 line to provide information to women on various self-examination techniques and on new research and treatment options. Nothing concrete has been done about the plan. I suggest it is worth reviewing and should be seriously considered.

The Ontario Breast Cancer Support and Research Centre currently has an application before the federal Minister of Health requesting that such a pilot for a 1-800 number be established in Ontario. I hope the pilot, proposed to be jointly funded through private funds and public funds, would be seriously considered by the minister. It would be an attempt to work on the recommendations that took a lot of time of parliamentarians and were very clearly thought out. The committee heard a number of witnesses as well.

There is also an outstanding recommendation for a national registry to keep a record of devices implanted in the body. This issue is very strongly linked to the motion we are discussing today since many women have in the past decided on breast reconstruction using silicone implants after they have undergone a mastectomy to remove a breast cancer.

It is also an issue for women who have not had breast cancer. It remains an extremely serious and outstanding issue that breast implants have not been thoroughly researched or thoroughly regulated by the federal government. It is an absolutely crucial area in which work must be done.

I might add there are a number of self-support groups that are trying to work with the government on the issue but receive no financial support. There are a number of civil suits pending against the manufacturers of silicone gel implants. I urge the federal government to play a strong role in support of these women.

In March 1995 I met with a number of women who had experience with their implants. I can assure everyone in the House that their problems are real. These problems, in addition to causing endless pain and suffering and disrupting family life, are a huge cost to the Canada health care system.

We are very fond of saying we have to do something to cut health care costs. By regulation by the Canadian government in the area and by information being available to women about the medical devices we could do much to address that health care cost with a very minimum of support from the federal government.

One of the most important recommendations in the standing committee's report on breast cancer asked that the federal government provide some direct funding for survivor led women's support groups. We cannot underestimate the importance of the recommendation. That is why my motion today deals specifically with it.

One reason survivor led support groups can play such an important role is that women who volunteer their time have been through the process. They are able to empathize with other women, to talk about how they have handled the issue, and to deal with confusion and fear first hand. It is important for a woman diagnosed with breast cancer to have that kind of support. For a very minimal cost we could be saving health care costs down the line in a substantial way.

There is a lot of research to suggest that a positive attitude and a strong support network can actually help people fight diseases. The support groups we now have in Canada have had a tremendously positive effect on the lives of women.

This is important in light of the fact that scientific research has failed to come up with strong links between the causes of breast cancer and the onset of the disease. Despite years of research we still do not know the cause of the majority of breast cancers. Scientists have identified links like a genetic marker, age and a woman's estrogen level, but in 60 per cent to 70 per cent of all cases none of the identified risk factors is at play. It is incredibly important to look at some of the ways we can help women when they are diagnosed.

There is a huge library of research. I have many bibliographies in my own office that I would be happy to share with members of the House which point to the link between self-help groups and improved quality of life in the face of illness. Clearly with a minimum of assistance to help co-ordinate volunteers and disseminate information we can have a positive health outcome. I would suggest it is an economic saving as well.

Recently American researchers, as an example, released their findings from a study of 7,000 people in California. They had monitored the people for nine years to see if there was a link between strong social and family support networks and improved mortality. In every health category people with stronger social ties, people with stronger friendships, for example, had a lower incidence of illness. When they did get sick they stood a better chance of recovery.

When we talk about health care costs and health programs we tend to think of them generally speaking in a very narrow framework. We have to begin to think about how we can enhance existing links that provide support for people in these traumatic instances. In addition, as the research indicates they also work.

Canadian studies have made the same links in breast cancer. There was a study in British Columbia indicating that for women with breast cancer, women's friendships, social network and employment status had a positive impact on survival chances. The link is somewhat stronger for women who have had some form of outside support.

Over 5,400 Canadian women will die of breast cancer this year. An estimated 17,000 Canadian women will be newly diagnosed with the disease. That is one in nine Canadian women. We have made some advances. I know of many people who have successfully fought the disease and have gone on to raise their families and to live happy and productive lives.

Statistics show it is still a very major health issue. Breast cancer is the second most frequently occurring cancer in the country. More shocking still-and I have not really seen research on why it is-Canada's rate of breast cancer is the second highest in the world, second only to the United States. There is much we need to do in the area.

The obvious question is where do we get the money? It is a legitimate one. There are avenues through the health promotion and contribution program at Health Canada which has funded some projects to help breast cancer support groups communicate with one another. As in so many other areas, by assisting groups with a small amount of money we can have a huge benefit. By spending the funds we have well we enhance the links that exist in the community.

Federal support for survivor led support groups could assume a model, for example the one set up for the AIDS secretariat. It is a very good model in terms of looking at how the federal government can co-ordinate funding in an appropriate way. That model of secretariat does two things. It indicates a commitment on the part of government to a serious health issue and provides a central source for promotion of dealing with the issue both within government departments and throughout the country.

As much as anyone, certainly the New Democratic Party knows there is not a lot of money and revenues are tight. It is a question of priorities. It is a question of what we wish to see for the population of the country.

There are some who would refer to spending $60 million on the Senate. I would say save national medicare and sacrifice the Senate. There is still not a single support group in Ontario that has had help from the Canadian government. I might be wrong and could be corrected, but I do not know of any other support group in a province or territory that is assisted by the government.

There is also a related issue which I think is very real because again we are talking about priorities, reduced funding and choices. The social assistance and health transfer proposed under Bill C-76 is now undergoing discussion in committee. Seven billion dollars in cuts will only make it more difficult in this area of health.

As we are looking at priorities in Canada, what it means to be a citizen of Canada, a comprehensive system of national health care must be foremost. Many groups and individuals are very concerned that the bill will simply result in less co-ordination and reduce funding in both provinces and territories for the kind of groups that are needed and the kind of research that is needed.

In the same recently even the United Nations has expressed strong concern about the health and social service transfers, saying they could strip disadvantaged groups of their fundamental rights.

Health Canada is currently funding five pilot projects to improve communication between small support groups. I commend that. It is a good start on the things that need to be done. Funding for these networking groups ends in 1996. I hope by then we can say we have been able to extend a helping hand to many grassroot support groups working with sufferers of breast cancer.

I am not talking about a lot of funding, simply an amount that will help groups co-ordinate and do their work. One group I have become familiar with is the Burlington breast cancer support services. This group was the first survivor directed support organization in Canada. It started out with assistance

from the government but today it does not receive any funding from the government. It is making it on memberships and private donations and was fortunate enough to have office space donated. It was that little bit of funding that got it started that made the difference in the group's being able to continue and establish itself.

The group in Burlington receives 155 calls for support each month; 57 people drop in to its office each month and in 1994, 111 people volunteered over 15,000 hours to provide peer support and keep the organization running. This is a very clear example of how a little assistance can have a very beneficial result for people suffering from this disease.

Every parliamentarian should have the chance to speak to the women who volunteer in these kinds of activities, women who have suffered breast cancer or to their families. Obviously in this instance it affects many more people than the person who has the illness. Parliamentarians would then see the level of commitment and dedication and support they give which is absolutely crucial to others.

Today I presented some of the 2,000 petitions I received from men and women across the country, from every province and territory, asking parliamentarians for the support I have discussed here. I have received over 30,000 signatures, the largest number I have received on any petition. Many women have called and written to me asking for more petitions. Others have written to tell me of their own experiences with breast cancer, suggesting new areas where parliamentarians can help.

The other day I received a completed petition from the member for Calgary Southeast, and I thank her. I believe this is a non-partisan issue. I look forward to hearing the views of my colleagues in the House on this issue. I hope it will not simply be addressed here and then forgotten.

The subcommittee of 1992 has not had a lot of action on the recommendations. I encourage all parliamentarians, both men and women, to become involved in supporting the issue and making it a new national priority.

The other day I spoke with members of the Canadian heritage committee, responsible for the status of women, and was told the committee does not have plans to discuss this issue. I believe we should look at this again. I also think we should act on it. Most women will say: "Do not do another study. We have had a lot of studies. Give us action. We have given you the ideas".

Core funding for survivor led breast cancer services is one of the most important, most cost effective ways to address the issue.

One of Ontario's breast cancer activists said recently we cannot ignore the needs of women living with the disease while we are searching for the cure.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Yukon for bringing this important issue to the House.

We assure her we will co-operate with her and with all her colleagues both male and female to find a solution to the problem of breast cancer.

I want to speak to the federal initiatives in the area of breast cancer. The Minister of Health, the secretary of state with responsibility for women's issues and the Liberal women's caucus have all lately addressed the issue of breast cancer, talking about wellness, promotion and education, ensuring we support our community in the search for the necessary awareness and cure.

For too long breast cancer has been one of the most silent killers in Canadian households. Breast cancer, as the member said, is a leading cause of cancer deaths among women. It is estimated that breast cancer accounts for 28 per cent of newly diagnosed cancer cases in women and for 20 per cent of all deaths due to cancer.

Members of the House should be aware the chances of acquiring breast cancer increase with age. In spite of progress in cancer research and improved methods of early detection, Canadian cancer statistics 1995 show the incidence of breast cancer has been increasing at about 1 per cent annually since 1983.

Mortality, on the other hand, has not increased. Rather, it has marginally decreased. About one in nine women will develop breast cancer over their lifetime, and this rate has remained unchanged. Breast cancer will strike 17,700 in 1995 and kill 5,400 this year alone.

For those affected the disease is often disfiguring and requires months of treatment and years of adjustment. I recently experienced an exhibition called "Survivors" where most poignantly those facts were brought out.

On June 12, 1992 the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and the Status of Women tabled a report entitled "Breast Cancer: Unanswered Questions". In its response to the report the federal government at the time recognized the devastating effects of breast cancer to society as a whole and to Canadian women in particular and commended the standing committee for bringing to its attention the need for a concerted national effort to address this important women's health issue.

The federal government supported the overall direction of the standing committee's recommendations and sought, through a number of initiatives, to bridge the gaps in knowledge in the areas of prevention, screening, treatment and care. The government's response recognized and identified the need for in-

creased collaboration to address the health issue and serve as a framework to seek effective ways of responding to this national concern.

Twenty-five million dollars over five years was allocated for to establish a breast cancer research challenge fund, to develop five breast cancer information exchange projects, to convene a national forum, to support an co-ordinate provincial breast cancer screening activities, to support actions to foster uniformly high standards of care for breast cancer, and to support activities to enhance continuing education and training of health professionals in the area of breast cancer.

In exercising leadership in the area of research the federal government committed $20 million to the breast cancer research challenge fund and issued a challenge to individuals, communities and the corporate sector to match if not exceed these funds. The National Cancer Institute of Canada agreed to manage the funds accumulated through this challenge. This is accomplished through the management committee for the Canadian breast cancer research initiative, a partnership between Health Canada, the Medical Research Council of Canada, the Canadian Cancer Society and the National Institute of Canada.

In the spring of 1993 the federal government issued a request for proposals in order to fund existing cancer centres and other health care institutions across Canada for the development of breast cancer information exchange pilot projects.

These projects are now a reality and we are very proud of the work taking place. They are funded with $2.7 million over five years and located in five regions of Canada. They are developing specific expertise to disseminate state of the art, user friendly information on various aspects of breast cancer. These projects have a strong evaluation component and will serve as a model which can be used by other cancer centres or health care institutions to disseminate information on breast cancer to women, their families and health practitioners.

The national forum on breast cancer was held in Montreal on November 14 to 16, 1993 to determine priorities and directions in the areas of breast cancer prevention, screening, treatment, care, research as well as address issues relevant to survivors support, advocacy and networking. Throughout the event a number of common principles emerged, the need for better communication, collaboration, co-ordination at all levels and for greater consumer involvement.

The federal government has also committed $1.05 million over five years to the continued support and co-ordination of provincial breast cancer screening activities. To that effect Health Canada continues to assist with the activities of the Canadian breast cancer screening initiative.

Representation from the provincial and territorial ministries of health, existing provincial organized screening programs, the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation, the Canadian Breast Cancer Network, the Canadian Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute of Canada and Statistics Canada are all involved in the screening initiative.

In order to support activities to foster uniformly high standards of care a steering committee for the development of care and treatment guidelines has been established. It is composed of women living with breast cancer as well as representatives from organizations and groups responsible for delivering and implementing guidelines.

The Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Nurses Association, provincial health ministries, the National Cancer Institute of Canada, representatives of provincial cancer agencies or their equivalent, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, the College of Family Physicians of Canada, the Federation of Medical Licensing and Authorities of Canada and Health Canada are participating on the steering committee.

Ten specific topics related to the care and treatment of women with breast cancer have been selected as the starting point for their activities.

The point I am making here is that there are many individuals, groups and organizations involved in looking for responses and answers to the issue of breast cancer. In order to improve the scope and content of the professional-patient relationship a co-ordinating committee on professional education has been established. The committee has brought together professional associations and representatives. Survivors of breast cancer are a key to any work that has to take place and to all the components of the federal breast cancer initiative.

Survivors' views and perspectives drive the products being undertaken. Each component of the initiative has survivor representatives as well as women at risk.

It is important to note that survivor driven organizations form a key characteristic of the breast cancer information exchange pilot projects' overall information dissemination strategy. This strategy is built on the concept of collaboration with key partners, chief among whom are women at risk, survivors and health care providers.

I think I speak for everyone on this side of the House in addressing this issue and in affirming we want to work with all members, especially with the member for Yukon, to eradicate this problem in our midst. This issue will not be ignored.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak in today's debate on Motion M-376, presented by the hon. member for Yukon. The motion proposes that the government should provide core funding that would be used to offer women diagnosed with breast cancer information on the various treatments available and on services provided by support groups.

The motion draws our attention to a major health problem for women in Quebec and Canada. Breast cancer, the incidence of which is certainly not declining, kills many women every year.

Despite the interest in improving the status of women in Canada and legislation and policies aimed at correcting the inequities women experience, it is a fact that the status of women still leaves much to be desired, compared with the status of men and that which remains to be done before women enjoy the same advantages as men.

I am very aware of and concerned about health care. I think it is important to remind the federal government that we urgently need a health care system that is adapted to womens' needs. The latest studies on women's health have made us realize that as far as health care is concerned, women's needs differ greatly from men's.

Financial resources dedicated to research on women's health are inadequate. There is a lack of resources for breast cancer research, gynaecology and obstetrics, research on chronic and degenerative diseases, mental health, violence, professional illnesses, the special needs of immigrant women, women of ethnic origin, native women, teenagers, elderly women, and the list goes on.

At the beginning of this session the Minister of Health told us how she intended to promote women's health. She described the programs her government intended to implement to remedy the inadequacies of the health care system in the treatment of women.

Unfortunately, that is not what happened. Since this government came to power, funding for health care has dropped steadily. This government has maintained a freeze on transfer payments to the provinces, which has meant a reduction in resources for the health care systems operated by the provinces.

In its latest budget, the government went even further by cutting $70 million from the budget of its own Department of Health, which has seen its general envelope shrink by 3.8 per cent.

The motion moved by the leader of the New Democratic Party reminds the government of the importance of supporting action taken to fight breast cancer.

Breast cancer is frightening. This disease kills women at a rate of one every 12 minutes in North America. During the past 30 years, this type of cancer has spread like a particularly nasty plague, and the only effective remedy remains prevention and early detection of the disease.

In Canada, the situation is not very encouraging. Canada has the highest rate of breast cancer in the world. Every year, 15,000 new cases of breast cancer are detected. Five thousand women will die of breast cancer this year. This is one death every two hours. In Quebec alone, nearly 1,500 women will succumb to this terrible disease. Every woman in Canada and Quebec has one chance out of ten of contracting breast cancer in the course of a lifetime. Earlier, my government colleague said one chance in nine. There may have been a decline, but it is still too high.

The results of a nationwide poll released last Thursday revealed that 41 per cent of women in Canada and Quebec saw breast cancer as the main threat to their lives.

It is high time effective steps were taken to conquer this disease. We need a cancer detection strategy that considers both genetic and environmental factors. In fact, that is what transpired from the final report of the National Forum on Breast Cancer tabled last fall. The report recommended immediately introducing national guidelines for medical practitioners, to inform physicians and encourage upgrading of their skills. So far, nothing has been done.

Also a public awareness and information campaign would be needed to inform and support breast cancer sufferers. This was in fact suggested by the hon. member for Yukon in her motion.

The best way to beat breast cancer is to invest in research. At the National Forum on Breast Cancer, the government promised to spend $20 million over five years. We hope it will keep its promise.

Although we realize that breast cancer is a scourge that has been ignored to a shocking extent by politicians and the medical community, the Bloc Quebecois must remind the government that health care is an exclusively provincial jurisdiction.

If the federal government decides to support the war against breast cancer in some way or other, we remind the government that it must do so in consultation with its provincial partners.

Many provinces have already introduced effective measures. In British Columbia, Ontario and now Quebec, provincial governments have launched extensive breast cancer detection programs. The Quebec government's plan aims to reduce the mortality rate by 25 per cent over seven years.

As long as there are places where a woman's life is valued less than a man's, women's health problems will tend to be ignored, to the detriment of their own lives, the well-being of their families and the development of their country. Throughout history, women have shown this extraordinary capacity for getting together and hammering out a consensus. Our present day societies, which seem to be marching only to the drum of economic and cultural globalization, need more than ever before what women have to offer.

For the sake of soaring profits, society is pushing an increasing number of people out to its margins and providing a breeding ground for many forms of fundamentalism. Women, because they are aware of the problem and of their strengths, will have to stand together to fight effectively against poverty and extremism.

If it is to develop harmoniously, society cannot afford to ignore women and the issues and problems they are facing. Women's health is one of the factors that has a direct impact on the evolution of women's place in our society. I maintain that we must take action where it will do the most good, in other words, we must invest in medical research now to find a cure for breast cancer.

We should act now by raising the federal government's financial support to the level of the commitments it made to the provinces when the Canada Health Act was passed. Women's health cannot but improve as a result.

[Harold Culbert, Liberal, Carleton—Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Yukon on her initiative regarding this most worthwhile matter contained in Motion No. 376.

This morning the standing committee on health discussed this very matter, not in any great depth but with seriousness due to the subject matter. It was discussed from the perspective of what was being done in research in order to overcome breast cancer. We had before the standing committee this morning Dr. Henry Friesen, who is president of the Medical Research Council of Canada. Dr. Friesen commented that there has not been a cure found for this most dreaded infliction, which has indeed touched many families right across the country.

Perhaps the work being done by the standing committee on health can act as a coordinator to assist in carrying this forward so that the information will flow in the future.

Quite obviously, suffering from any illness brings an undue burden on anyone. Compounding it with the problem of lack of information is indeed unfair and unnecessary in this day and age. The hon. member's motion would ensure that women suffering from breast cancer are provided with all the information they may need and the counselling they may require. I suggest again that in this day in age that is only humane. When suffering from any illness, information regarding all types of treatment should be readily available and accessible to all. It should certainly be the patient's right to obtain any and all information and have immediate access to the same.

It is quite obvious in this case, as in many circumstances, that to have a support group, those who may have suffered or family members who have suffered in a similar fashion, can comfort, assist and indicate what might be expected in future days, weeks, and months, and can be a tremendous comfort to anyone suffering in this case.

Quite obviously a person cannot be expected to make such an important medical decision without having weighed all those possible alternatives that may be available. We are told that Canadians have the second highest rate of breast cancer in the world. It has hit, as I have mentioned before, almost every family in Canada in recent years, and that suffering continues today, day in and day out, from this dreaded disease.

The survivor led breast cancer support group would provide sufferers with an opportunity for the needed information and the support they so often lack. There is no question that this type of support group can be most helpful through their own personal experiences. It is time to realize that we must take action to help women with breast cancer in the best possible way while we wait for that cure to be discovered.

For this reason I am very happy to support the hon. member's motion this evening and I certainly to encourage my government to adopt a platform that will ensure that women diagnosed with breast cancer are provided with the information they deserve and need. We wait and hope for our ultimate goal of discovery of a cure to eliminate this dreaded suffering so that we need not have a group nor the suffering in the future. To quote from the Medical Research Council: "It is to promote, assist, and undertake basic applied clinical research in Canada in the health sciences and to advise the minister in respect of such matters relating to such research as the minister may refer to the council for its consideration".

We are certainly hopeful that through the research council and the work done through universities and other labs and tests here in Canada a cure for this dreaded disease will be found as soon as is feasibly possible. In the meantime, we certainly encourage all in the House to support the hon. member's endeavour in this particular motion to assist those suffering and to provide the assistance and expertise of support groups at the earliest possible date.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to rise to speak to this motion today.

In its simplicity, this motion on breast cancer funding can be looked upon as an opportunity to address a topic of specific interest and importance to women and of general interest and importance to everyone. I agree with my hon. colleague from Yukon that we need to address breast cancer as a new national priority.

In the address I will give looking at the whole issue of breast cancer, I bring to the forefront of the debate the extent and fit of government involvement. This is not simply a question of breast cancer funding but of government research funding as a whole. Who should regulate it, why and how?

Breast cancer is a disease that afflicts one out of nine Canadian women, placing Canada as the country with the second highest rate of breast cancer in the world. These statistics were already cited today but I am going to reiterate them. There are approximately 17,000 new cases diagnosed each year and over 5,000 deaths. Breast cancer is the second most frequently occurring form of cancer next only to lung cancer. These figures emphasize the scope and significance of this disease.

Although breast cancer is considered a women's disease it afflicts all Canadians in one form or another. We all have mothers, sisters, wives, girlfriends, if not ourselves who are very possibly at risk and one in nine will be diagnosed in her lifetime.

I have witnessed the physical and emotional devastation of breast cancer. As a teenager I watched a beloved aunt die slowly and painfully over a six-year period. Her cancer began in her breast and it was unstoppable.

Where does government belong in the battle against breast cancer? What would be the most effective use of scarce government resources targeted to breast cancer funding? I refer to the idea of creative productivity. Government does and should have a role in the fight against breast cancer. Let us not move too quickly to ask big brother to jump in to spend dwindling resources without thinking this through.

Government funded and operated initiatives have not always been the most efficient despite good intentions. We are all too familiar with the economic and bureaucratic nightmare of exploding costs that some government run programs can create. We need just to look at the current state of our health care system and its high degree of inefficiency.

Funding to breast cancer research has seen a surge over the past three years partly from government but more significantly from corporate funders and private individuals and programs. In 1990 less than $500,000 was committed to breast cancer research. Since 1992 the federal government has committed $20 million toward breast cancer research over five years. The Canadian Cancer Society has put up another $10 million. Corporate donors are expected to provide another $15 million.

In areas of medical research where what we are looking for are cures and preventative measures, government does indeed have a very important role to play. It already has a hand in regulation of scientific research but even here it is not the core funder. The private sector has been a much more impressive financial contributor to research into breast cancer. Certainly government's tardy involvement in breast cancer studies is further proof as to why we might want to look for a more collaborative effort between both public and private initiatives.

In 1986, unable to persuade the Canadian Cancer Society to change its policy on targeting funding, a group of Toronto women established the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation. Since its inception it has collected well in excess of $1 million for research and education.

In 1990 the Canadian Cancer Society agreed to start accepting funds earmarked for specific cancer sites. All involved agree that it is largely due to survivor groups that the initiative came together.

Strength and courage are demonstrated by breast cancer survivors who, after being told that they have a disease that is almost surely disfiguring and far too often fatal, have had the initiative to organize themselves into impressive fundraising and information gathering organizations.

Pressured by women's organizations and survivor groups, the funding has grown to an estimated $15 million annually, up from $5 million in 1989. This funding is being put into research for not only cures but also causes.

Research into BRCA1 which is a gene believed to cause 2 to 4 per cent of breast cancers and studies examining the development of a vaccine to stop some kind of breast cancers in their attacks by activating the immune system are just two examples of current efforts to combat this deadly disease.

As of 1994 more than half of the financial resources of breast cancer research have come from non-government agencies and organizations. According to people I have spoken to within these organizations, they are not looking to government for financial support. Their argument is that financial support from government is all too often attached to government meddling. It is also perceived as unpredictable, particularly in light of current proposed cuts.

We must continue to encourage and invite collaboration between public and private groups. We would also be wise to continue to promote the independence demonstrated by many support groups.

I believe the hon. member's motion may have missed an important step and presumes that more government involvement is necessarily better. Would funding not be put to better use if it remained in areas of prevention and cure development? Then organizations which are already set up to provide support, information and education, such as breast cancer survivor groups and the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation, are prepared to fulfil their supportive roles.

The reality of Canada's debt makes us cautious about inviting government to spend more money we do not really have. Therefore we encourage more creative means of funding in some of these areas.

The government is already allocating funds toward cancer research. Should we not leave it to those who know where that money is best spent to decide where to put it, rather than having government make that decision for them? Who better to make funding allocation decisions than those who have spent the better part of their lives studying and examining the disease? That is not to say they should be given a free hand, but once the money has been earmarked, then it is up to the scientists and researchers to do with it what is most needed.

As it stands, decisions on who should get what funding is tenuous at best when we see that it is often not necessarily the most needy who are getting a fair share of government funding. When some diseases responsible for taking less than one-tenth the lives taken from breast cancer are getting almost eight times the funding, the source of this decision must be questioned, that source being the federal government.

In 1993 the national forum on breast cancer referred to a holistic approach to the treatment and care of breast cancer, one that explicitly acknowledges both the non-medical and medical experiences for women and their families. It concluded that breast cancer has a profound physical and emotional effect on not only women with the disease, but very directly on their community of family and friends.

Let us not give exclusive invitations to government into our homes and personal lives. Government does have a role to perform in addressing breast cancer, but not at the expense of community based networks of support.

What we have advocated has been the need for Canadians to take charge of their lives and to some degree exclude government from the expectation of care. Family and community support must be encouraged, but this will not be done by making government responsible for providing those support groups. Women and families suffering from breast cancer and any debilitating disease need supports to give them strength together to survive and in a sense conquer these diseases, if not physically at least spiritually.

The national forum on breast cancer has also recommended a collaborative effort among government and corporate and private sectors. Acknowledging that government has neither the resources nor the ability to be the sole responsible actor in breast cancer initiatives empowers survivors and their families to beat this deadly foe.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly on the motion moved by the member for Yukon:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should provide core funding to ensure that all women diagnosed with breast cancer have access, through survivor led support groups, to information on the various treatments available in their community and local counselling services provided by peer support groups and survivors.

I commend the hon. member for this initiative because it is time that we acknowledged such a need.

Tomorrow a friend of the family is being buried. She died from cancer. Only the privacy of communication would preclude me from mentioning her name. This woman had contributed to the community, to the city of Winnipeg, to women's causes, to the university, and I would say to Canada and the world. In a sense learning of her death was timely in view of the debate on this motion.

It is known that when a patient suffers from any illness the immediate problem is the patient is met with shock. To a woman suffering from cancer that shock is even greater. During shock one of the best sources of support comes from her peers. Let us not underestimate the importance this group of people contribute to patient care.

We need all the information available for that patient to be able to make the informed consent. We equally need the counselling that will come from her peers. Norman Cousins, in The Healing Heart , emphasized the powerful influence of psychological factors in the cure and the care of any patient with cancer or other illness. This is now a recognized medical phenomenon and this motion calls our attention to that very need. I wish Canada had such a centre to study and to focus on the role and the importance of psychological counselling in the care of any patient.

I am told Canada has the second highest rate of breast cancer in the world. Let us hope that one day Canada would be last on the list. Recently in Maclean's magazine I came across the news of a new discovery that we can help to diagnose or anticipate the high incidence of cancer among women. If one demonstrates the increased density through the particular use of a technology, density in the sense that the proportion of the fibrous tissue in

relation to the fat and the glandular elements is more, then there is a high propensity for cancer.

Day in and day out we are developing technology that will allow us to make an early diagnosis, but when a diagnosis of cancer is made for any given woman, all resources must be provided. It is timely that core funding be given. The least we could do is help that individual woman with cancer.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There being no further members rising I wonder if the hon. member for Yukon wishes to rise to close the debate?

[Audrey McLaughlin, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity. I thank members present today for their interventions.

Today's debate has shown this is not a partisan issue. A commitment to prevention and research for women suffering from breast cancer is something we must always bring forward. This is not just a women's issue as was pointed out by one of the speakers. This is an issue affecting all Canadians and all Canadian families, certainly my own family. I am sure that virtually everyone in the House has experienced something similar.

We must put action behind the words we have spoken today. There is a great need. We have all cited the statistics, but what will really address that need is to acknowledge that we must work with those who are sufferers of the disease, to help them-as I mentioned in my remarks, many people do recover-and to present a hopeful and a positive view. This is an issue that members of Parliament can seriously address.

To the member from the health committee, perhaps this is an issue they might wish to explore further in reviewing the recommendations of 1992 to see what has been accomplished and what yet remains to be accomplished. I thank all members for their comments.