Debates of Nov. 1st, 1996

Speech From The Throne

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I am almost certain that I rose to my feet a split second before my hon. colleague from North Vancouver.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. member. We have 10 minutes and each member can have five minutes.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was such an enthralling speech I could have sworn I saw you dozing off for a moment there.

I would like to question the member on two particular issues. He rambled on at great length about the wonderful health care system we have and how universal it is.

The first question deals with the province of Quebec, which refuses to properly reimburse other provinces for the health care given to its citizens when they use the health services of other provinces. The present health minister, when he was in opposition, regularly complained about that in this House and said the Liberal government would do something about it. Then on the TV program "Ottawa Inside Out" just a few months ago he suddenly says it is not at the top of the priority list anymore. Yet he was more than happy to punish Alberta and B.C. for trying to find alternative ways to fund their health care systems. Why is the Minister of Health now ignoring the serious violation of the Canada Health Act by Quebec?

The second question deals with waiting lists. Can he please explain why the Liberal government has given the entrepreneur of the year award to a company in Winnipeg that provides waiting list insurance for Canadians so that they can go to the United States for medical services when they have to wait too long in Canada?

Finally, what does he have to say to one of my constituents, Mrs. Gawenda, who waited nine months for an operation in Vancouver that should have been done within weeks? She ended up going to Seattle and paying $15,000 of her own money to have it done. The doctors down there said what sort of a country would have allowed a person to go nine months waiting for an operation that should have been done in three weeks.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the premise of the member's question has to do with the issues surrounding what happened in Alberta and B.C. What happened there was they were operating a two tier health care system-

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Quebec is the issue.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

I will address Quebec in a moment, if the member would give me an opportunity to respond. It took several months. The health minister of the day gave several months for Alberta to change the situation so that Canadians could get health care not because they had money but because they were sick.

With regard to the Quebec situation, the rules guiding the provinces from the federal level are contained in the Canada Health Act. The five principles of the Canada Health Act are portability, accessibility, universality, comprehensiveness and publicly funded. The government, through the Canada health and social transfer, transfers the moneys. If there are problems there the rules are in place to deal with them and the provinces will surely have to comply with the spirit and in fact the law of the Canada Health Act.

With regard to waiting lists, that is a provincial jurisdiction. I do, however, understand that people have to wait. I spent nine years on the board of the Mississauga hospital and five years as treasurer. I know that the tremendous shift to an ambulatory philosophy toward providing health care has made sure that hospitals even when they downsize actually are serving more patients than they used to more efficiently. They are more cost effective.

There are certain things they cannot do on demand. Any business has to respond to fiscal realities. I do not think that in this case the member has convinced me that his constituent is not getting appropriate health care.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask the hon. member a question following, as my colleague says, his riveting presentation. We can certainly tell there is an election coming when politicians become so full of themselves.

Earlier the hon. Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie made a presentation in this House. He talked about what he viewed as the Reform Party inconsistency in our policies.

I point out from Hansard page 5561, October 22, 1996 that in response to a question about the announcement of a grant of $11 million to Viet Nam and the concern expressed by an hon. member

during that question about human rights abuses in Viet Nam, the hon. minister replied that the Canadian government should not use economic pressure to resolve a situation concerning human rights. That is what he said basically, that he did not believe that.

Later on the same day the same minister in response to a question about the situation in Afghanistan and the concern expressed there for human rights replied: "The Canadian government is extremely concerned about human rights not being respected, in particular women's rights, in Afghanistan. That is why we have suspended all Canadians funds for local initiatives until further notice".

We talk about inconsistencies. Unfortunately there was not time for me to put this question directly to him, but I will put it to his hon. colleague because he does represent the Liberal government. This minister is saying in connection with Viet Nam that no, we cannot tie human rights to economic aid and yet with Afghanistan we do prevent economic aid because of human rights abuses.

I am wondering, as are the people of Canada, which is it?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that I clarify one thing for members of the House and for Canadians.

As a backbench member of Parliament I do not speak on behalf of the minister and I do not speak on behalf of the Liberal Party. I am part of a team, but I have no authority and no way to represent the position of the government.

Notwithstanding that, I am familiar with the issues which the member has raised and I will give him my personal input, which is what my job is.

The member will well know that human rights issues are very important to Canada. The social values that we have in this country have meant that every time international situations arise Canadians look to Canada to provide leadership where possible. The member must surely know that with a population of just about 30 million people it is very difficult to go to China and say "I am the Prime Minister of Canada. I represent 30 million people and you should stop doing what you are doing". The premier of China would say "I am the premier of China and I represent one billion people".

Canada has a role to play in terms of its model. We supported our UN allies with the embargoes on South Africa. We supported our allies in the Afghanistan situation. However, we are not singing from a linear song sheet.

For example, let us look at the Cuba situation. Canada does not support the U.S. position on Cuba. Canada's position appears to be, very clearly, that the best way to change human rights abuses in Cuba is for Canadians to be there, to be doing business there and to have some input and show Cubans how we can work together to make the world a safer place.

The point is do not look for a simple solution to the complex problems of the world. Every situation has different circumstances. Canada will play its role as it always has.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the member's intervention I am reminded of the immortal words of Forest Gump: "Blah, blah, blah, blah". That is all I have to say about that.

Throne speeches are an opportunity for the government to chart a course and lay out its plans for the country, for the people and for the government for the ensuing months.

Different kinds of thrones often produce different results. I am afraid that the Canadian people have received a vastly inferior product with this throne speech.

Let us examine the facts. The government talked about all the wonderful things it was going to do for Canada. It talked about all the wonderful things it was going to do for the coastal communities of Canada, for example. The reality is vastly different.

The government has made vicious cuts to essential services such as the coast guard, search and rescue, fish hatcheries and light stations, to name a few, in the pursuit of saving a small amount of money in comparison to total government spending.

In the case of fish hatcheries we are talking about $3 million to $4 million a year. In the case of light stations we are talking about $3 million a year. In the case of the coast guard we are talking about $7 million a year. That is the coast guard; not for aids to navigation, but search and rescue. Those are coast guard services that actually are there to prevent the loss of Canadian human life, mariners and fishermen on the high seas.

We are told that these services have to be cut. We cannot afford them any more. The government just does not have the money.

We agree that this country has a serious deficit and debt problem. However, we say that the places where the government ought to cut last is where the government is actually delivering a service in the field to Canadians.

I have told people in my riding that if they want to find out where the DFO office is in Ottawa, they should fly to Ottawa, take a cab, drive around the downtown core and when they find the nicest, biggest, shiniest ivory tower, get out of the cab and walk over to the front door. I guarantee they have just found the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

The building is full from the top to the bottom with bureaucrats. A whole floor is dedicated to communications. What is meant by communications? They are talking about spin doctors. The whole floor is designed to sell the minister's decisions to the Canadian people. That is what the government considers to be an essential service. It is not the coast guard boats that are out there to save and preserve Canadian lives during problems, storms and so on. No, that is not an essential service.

The government uses the throne speech in a despicable way. It tries to convince Canadians that it is actually concerned about their welfare. In reality it is more concerned about its own welfare and places that as a much higher priority than any of the other priorities it has.

Let us examine for a minute the fact that after all these cuts the Government of Canada turns around and gives an $87 million no interest loan to its corporate buddies over at Bombardier. If the people at Bombardier wanted my money as a taxpayer, could they not ask me for it? Could they not knock on my door and say: "We would like to have some money. We need to do some R and D. You are a Canadian citizen and we think you should contribute to this cause". They could but they do not. Do you know why they do not? Because I would tell them to go play in the traffic. I would tell them they do not need my money because they have $6 billion in assets. They are making millions of dollars in profits and there are Canadians who do need my money. I would tell them to get lost.

However, Bombardier does not have to come to me or to the taxpayers of Canada to get permission to steal my money. No, it comes to the government and gets permission to coerce money out of me and all of the other taxpayers across this country to support its corporate objectives.

When I was first elected and came here I was absolutely dumbfounded one day when I opened the Financial Post and read that the government had made a $60 million U.S. loan for the construction of an aluminum smelter in South Africa. Think about this for a minute. Canada is one of the leading producers of aluminum in the world. There are 10 smelters in Quebec. There is one world class smelter in my riding in Kitimat, British Columbia. Not only the company, but the people who work in those companies are all contributing to the tax base here. The government does not ask them: ``Do you think we should send $60 million to South Africa to build an aluminum smelter down there?'' No, it does not ask anyone; it just says it is doing it.

And what is SNC-Lavalin? Just another corporate buddy of the Liberal government. It is another corporation which happens to make hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations to the Liberal Party.

When we look at the record of this government and consider its approach to issues, it does not take very long to come to the conclusion that the Liberal government will put the priorities and the interests of Canadians behind its own political interests every time out of the starting gate. Frankly, it is starting to really annoy me and a lot of other Canadians.

The Liberal red book is a Liberal dead book. The speech from the throne is nothing more than a pompous, self-inflated statement designed to mislead Canadians and has no real intent to serve their interests.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to finally address the throne speech. Only in the Canadian system could we be addressing a speech where all the goals and finances were established six months ago. In fact, half the programs have already been spent.

I will address my area as critic which is public works which deals with a number of areas within government and with government contracts.

One of the first areas we dealt with in the government operations committee was the Senate. The finances of the Senate can come before our committee. I moved a resolution to have one of the Senate financial people come before our committee to explain how the Senate was going to spend its $40 million allocation plus another $11 million in expenses. It went through this House. It was the first time in Canadian history I might add that the Senate was asked to come before a committee to account for its expenses. Guess what? The people from the Senate did not show up. They felt that they did not have to. This brings us to the crux of the Canadian system.

Here we have a group of senators-I will call them a double U Senate, unelected and unaccountable-refusing to come before this House to justify their expenses. That is absolutely wrong. This is why we need a triple E Senate, elected, effective and equal. A lot of the legislation that went through this House-the GST is a good example, and gun control-would not have gone through if there had been an elected Senate, an effective Senate.

It happens in the United States and the Australian governments. They have Senates that work. Unfortunately we do not. It is fundamental to our system that this government right across the board voted to give the Senate its allocation of $40 million plus $11 million in expenses without questioning where it was going to spend that money.

Another area within public works is contracts. My colleague from Skeena commented on Bombardier. Why in heaven should Bombardier receive millions of dollars? It is one of the most profitable corporations in Canada yet it went to the Liberal government and got that money. Why? Because it donated $174,000 over the past three years to the Liberal Party.

Another one is the mine sweeper contract that went finally to SNC-Lavalin. This is a $35 million contract. Halifax Shipyards submitted the lowest bid and the best technical bid. It was the outfit that was recommended by the Department of National Defence but did Halifax Shipyards get that contract? No. It went to SNC-Lavalin in Quebec which is a very large Liberal supporter.

Is this the kind of government Canadians want? Canadians want a straight up, level playing field so that when contracts are given out, they are given out to the best possible competitor. That does not happen. I have seen contracts that have been rewritten. A contract on the east coast is written one way and when the contract goes to a west coast firm, the contract is rewritten so that the west coast firm cannot compete. That is absolutely wrong.

There has to be a level playing field in all contracts. That simply is not happening right now. The government is playing favourites like Bombardier, like SNC-Lavalin. This is clearly the old style politics. This is the Mulroney style politics. We know what happened to the Mulroney gang. The same thing is going to happen to this gang because Canadians simply will not put up with it.

We are in a debt and deficit hole. We need to spend our money wisely. We Canadians do not really like paying our taxes, but if we paid our taxes knowing full well that they were going to go to the right cause with efficiency, with economy, Canadians would be quite happy to come forward with their taxes. Right now they have absolutely no confidence in this government when it comes to spending their money. This will change come the next election.

Another area within public works is Canada Post. What has happened to our postal system? Over the past 10 or 12 years we cannot get a letter across a city in the same day or between cities in two days and anywhere in the country in three days. That is what the Radwanski report is saying. This should be the goal of Canada Post. Get of the courier business. Get out of Purolator Courier and get out of the ad mail business.

I will describe exactly what has happened in Canada Post. Canada Post owns half of Purolator. It is the biggest player in the courier business. By allowing Canada Post to falter, not to be able to get a letter across town for 45 cents, we then have to go to Purolator and pay $9 to get it across town. This is really good business, is it not? But they are playing with Canadian tax dollars. Canada Post absolutely refuses to show the cross-subsidization that is happening, where the 45-cent stamp is going. It undercuts ad mail. It undercuts it so that it is then the best player in town. It undercuts Purolator so that the other players, the private sector, are at a disadvantage.

Canada Post has to get out of that altogether and get back to its real mandate of efficient and economical delivery of mail. That is what the Reform Party believes. Canada Post should have the mandate to get back to the basics. If it cannot do that after being given a perfect chance, then the Reform Party will consider privatizing it. If that is the only way we can get mail delivered in this country, then we will do it.

The United States and Australia have similar distances, similar problems within their postal systems yet they can do it. Why can Canada Post not do it? Canada Post cannot do it because it is embroiled in trying to get into the public sector, which is absolutely wrong.

Canada Post has forgotten its absolute beginning mandate and this is where the Radwanski report is absolutely bang on. Allow Canada Post to be opened to access to information. Allow the auditor general into Canada Post to deal with it. Right now we cannot get any information from Canada Post on its finances or on what is going on. This is absolutely wrong.

In summary in the contract area and in the big corporate areas such as Canada Post and CMHC, the government has a dismal record. We must get government out of the faces of Canadians, get back to the basics and have contracts awarded on a real, effective, level playing field. In that way Canadians will be getting the best bang for their buck.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville—Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the speeches from the previous two speakers who shared their time.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I stood for questions and comments. Is that not permitted now?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Yes, it is questions and comments. This Speaker always recognizes a member from a party other than the one which gave an intervention.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville—Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would particularly like to compliment the first speaker of the two. He made it very clear to us and described in detail the needs of some of his constituents in the coastal communities of British Columbia.

As a member who comes from Ontario who has had brief visits to British Columbia it is good for me to hear a member from that part of the world describe these things in great detail. In so doing he is educating all of us in our responsibilities. The member had the wisdom to put price tags on some of the things his people at home needed. I found that description an honest presentation of the needs of the people of British Columbia. It was in stark contrast to the criticism that followed on the government's movements with Bombardier and the criticism of SNC Lavalin.

The member and the speaker previous to him implied that the government's dealings with Bombardier and SNC Lavalin were related only to politics. They failed to recognize that those two corporations are tremendous Canadian companies. As the Minister of Industry said the other day, the Government of Canada is backing a winner in the world of aerospace when it backs Bombardier and all governments around the world lucky enough to have aerospace industries provide subsidies to them.

In SNC Lavalin we have one of the greatest engineering companies in the world. It is highly regarded by its colleagues in the private sector because it is leading the charge of the Canadian private sector into the markets of China which is where some of our subsequent wealth in future years will come from. Therefore we should be encouraging that company, not berating it in the House of Commons.

Both previous speakers accused the governing party of old style politics. I suggest they have given a demonstration of old style politics. They have come to Ottawa to say this is what I need to take back home and do not give anything to anybody else who is not from my community or my province or my region. That is the kind of regionalism that is divisive.

It is perfectly legitimate to express the needs of your communities. That is what I want to hear. But I do not want to hear criticisms of other communities, other corporations, other provinces that are doing the same thing in order to build the federation as a whole. That is old style politics, coming to Ottawa and asking what can I grab, what can I take home?

My questions to those speakers are: What are they bringing to the federation? Which shared Canadian values are-

[The Deputy Speaker]

The member's time has expired because only five minutes are allowed. Only the member for Comox-Alberni may reply since there has already been a question period for the member for Skeena.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that we only come to this area to grab something for our own province. I would point out that three provinces are have provinces. One of them is British Columbia. We are very much at the bottom of the stick when it comes to receiving from the other end.

All we are asking for is a level playing field with equal give and take. British Columbians are tired of give, give, give. As my colleague for Skeena said, in the coastal communities it has been lighthouses, coast guard, fisheries. It is an on and on list of abandoning British Columbian coastal communities. This is not the

way a government should be operating, particularly toward a province like British Columbia that contributes more in transfer payments than it gets.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There being no further speakers and it being approximately 2 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the subamendment and the amendment now before the House.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the amendment to the amendment.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.