Debates of April 22nd, 1996

Department Of Health Act

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the third reading of Bill C-18. This bill is not earth shattering in what it does. It does something which is very important nevertheless.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

It is typical Liberal legislation.

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

My friend from Wild Rose is informed, as usual.

I say to him and others that this bill will create the new Department of Health. The old department was called national health and welfare and this bill together with the one dealt with the other day affects the change.

This bill confirms the mandate of the minister regarding the promotion and preservation of the health of Canadians. Health is a matter that affects Canadians very deeply. Our medicare system has come to be part of the way in which we see our country. We

believe that the federal government has an essential role in medicare and in safeguarding the overall health of the Canadian population.

In this time of change to our health system, many people want to know where the federal government stands on health issues. Canada's health system will continue to rely on the interlocking responsibilities of federal, provincial and territorial governments. That is why in the recent budget of March, the government went a long way toward providing provincial and territorial governments with stability and predictability in health funding and other social services of $25.1 billion each year over a five-year period, comprising a tax floor that had been requested by the provinces and tax transfer points.

Health Canada bears the overall responsibility for protecting and encouraging the health and safety of Canadians through promotion and prevention activities at the national level. It assesses the safety of drugs and medical devices. It deals with issues such as the potential impact on Canadians of exotic viruses or the re-emergence of public health threats such as tuberculosis. It encourages healthier lifestyles and active living.

The federal health department also supports the health system through funding for research as well as financial and technical contributions to provincial health systems. The federal health department arranges health care programs and services only for specific categories or groups of people who are a federal responsibility such as status Indians and the Canadian Armed Forces. Otherwise, the federal department is not a delivery agent for health care. That lies with the provincial and territorial governments. They have the primary responsibility in the area of health care delivery. They design and manage the system that most of us as Canadians use. However, the federal department does play an important national leadership role in health that Canadians see as essential.

Health issues figured very prominently in the Liberal Party's red book in the last federal election campaign. For example, a head start program for children of aboriginal families living in urban centres and large northern communities was promised. A number of projects under that program have already been funded.

Action on prenatal nutrition programs was also promised in the red book. They are being delivered through the community action program for children.

There are other commitments on which the government is acting but I will talk about them a little later. What is common to all of those initiatives is their national scope and the value of national action on each of them.

Of course this work also involves financial support for the health care system for the provinces and the territories, as I said a moment ago.

Federal health contributions have evolved over the last four decades from cost sharing arrangements to block funding transfers to the provinces and territories. Since 1984 the Canada Health Act has set out the five criteria that provincial and territorial medical insurance plans have to meet to qualify for federal support.

These five criteria are worth repeating here today. The first principle is universality. The Canada Health Act supports provincial health insurance systems that cover all eligible residents.

The second principle is accessibility. Services must be available without financial barriers. People must be given health care on the basis of need, not on the basis of how much they can afford to pay.

The third important principle is comprehensiveness. If a province defines a service as medically necessary, that service must be covered completely.

The fourth principle is portability. Canadians with coverage in their home province or territory maintain that health plan coverage when they travel or when they move. This is a very important principle, like the others, given the mobility in this country at this time, the number of people who move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, from province to province and from province to territory.

The fifth principle, together with the ones I have mentioned, universality, accessibility, comprehensiveness and portability, is public administration. It means that the health insurance plans of a province must be administered and operated on a non-profit basis by a public authority. That, to me, is the one some of the provinces either have difficulty understanding or difficulty wanting to live with. That is one of the five principles that we on this side of the House are committed to continue to enforce, the principle of public administration.

The government takes these five principles very seriously. It has resisted the false claims that watering down the act is the only way forward. Canadians want the health insurance system they have built during our lifetime to continue. They do not want to see a two-tier system and I do not want to see a two-tier system either.

Canadians understand that medicare has been a great social benefit. It has been one with very strong economic benefits as well. It is an efficient, effective program for providers, hospitals and for

Canadians. In fact, the average man or woman knows this reliability better than some commentators. We are better off thanks to medicare. That is why the federal government has defended the Canadian system of health insurance so strongly.

The government has been equally clear that it believes the health system needs to be reviewed. Canadians know the economic issues facing the health system. Make no mistake, they are the same issues in the United States and in other developed countries around the world. Many countries face issues such as rising costs of care, the emergence of new health needs, aging populations, the appearance of new medical technologies, drugs and other factors. We are all asking where the money goes.

As a country we face more challenging health issues. For example, all Canadians agree that tobacco is a major health issue. The Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed that smoking consumption in this country causes deaths of the order of nearly 40,000 each year. Remember that smoking is a costly exercise to the Canadian economy. The estimated cost to the Canadian economy is $11 billion a year. This figure incudes the costs to the health care system and the overall loss of productivity for Canadians as a whole.

The federal government is determined to work with its provincial counterparts as stakeholders to bring forward a comprehensive and focused package to address the tobacco issue.

There are other concerns. I have mentioned the tobacco issue. There are women's health issues for example. It is an important priority for the government and I am sure it is for provincial governments and stakeholders alike. It is time to address key issues surrounding women's health.

There is the issue of new reproductive technologies. Some who may have followed this issue will recall that the previous administration sponsored a Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies which contained numerous recommendations. This administration is now considering these recommendations. The government hopes to be able soon to move on a number of those recommendations in a substantive way. Members from all parties in the House have called for action on the issues of new reproductive technologies, of women's health, of tobacco. There have been calls from all over and the government is acting on those issues.

We must begin to consider what will become of the health system down the road. We know that spending more on the status quo is unlikely and that direction would not give us much better health outcomes than we now have.

The international evidence is clear that spending more on health care does not mean better health results by itself. Why? Health care is not the same as health and people often wrongly equate the two.

The status of a person's health is determined by many factors which are in place long before he or she sees a doctor or is admitted to a hospital. Some are as basic as genetics. Others involve the economic, the social or the environmental conditions in which we live. Still others are grounded in lifestyle choices. All these are determinants of health.

Progress in improving health may owe far more to living in an economy which produces good jobs or programs that help people live in proper housing surrounded by a clean environment. They are reasons for us to invest in effective health protection and promotion measures, ones that result in people making better health choices.

Health care is not enough, but it is important. Our question is how to achieve the best health results possible with the money that we have. This renewal process has been under way now for a few years. The challenge for all of us is to break out of the traditional box of health thinking. It will mean change. Community based health service centres and multidisciplinary team approaches to health care are changing the landscape of health care delivery.

The increased awareness that good health begins long before a visit to a doctor will mean an increased emphasis on the education of health consumers and preventive medicine. People will need to learn what physicians can and cannot do for them. People will need to learn how much they can take charge of their own lives. These steps are each part of a broader evolution of our health care system.

Canadians trust their health care system. They expect the federal government to support and defend that system, especially the fundamental principles on which medicare is based. That is why we need a strong federal Department of Health and why I am encouraging members of this House to support the bill before us today.

I mentioned a moment ago the issue of determinants of health. We in the Standing Committee on Health which I have the honour to chair are doing a study on the determinants of health as they relate to younger children. It is an important issue.

We in this Chamber and elsewhere are aware that poverty for example is a real determinant of health for people. We have direct correlations between poverty levels and such matters as the rate of suicide among people. Poverty levels and achievement in school are two areas where poverty impacts on other outcomes. The all-party health committee of the House is now undertaking a rather in depth study of this issue to see what needs to be done and is not currently being done in the area of children's health.

The bill before us is not one that is terribly earth shattering but Bill C-18 is an important piece of legislation. In the jargon of the House it is considered only a housekeeping bill to put in place the necessary statute to allow the department to function.

I am rather delighted that the current Minister of Health is my good friend from Cape Breton. Already in the short time he has been in the portfolio I have watched with some satisfaction his commitment to the serious challenges we face in health care and his determination to do something about those issues. He is a good spokesperson for the issues. I certainly wish him well, together with his parliamentary secretary from Eglinton who has just taken on that responsibility.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on first looking at the bill to establish the Department of Health, one might think that it was a housekeeping bill, that it was quite ordinary, since there was at one time a department that looked after social affairs, welfare and such things. One might also tell oneself that the federal government had already played a role in this field and that this was probably just an update.

But it is also an opportunity to look at what the federal government has to do and what its responsibility is in the health sector. For this, we must look back at the origins of our health system. In the past, because of its spending power, the federal government contributed to the development of programs that, while they must be recognized, often parallelled those run by the provincial governments.

Today, these prosperous times are pretty much over and we are facing a completely different situation. The federal government is reducing its spending on health by billions of dollars, but insists on maintaining national standards. It is determined that the rules should be the same throughout Canada.

The way the government has found to ensure this is by creating a department, by means of the Canada Health Act, which sets these standards. But it is like anything else: to keep the thing going, you need the corresponding funds and an effective way to put them to use.

I think that the best example of very inappropriate interference by the federal government in this sector is the creation of the National Forum on Health. What is the National Forum on Health? It is a group of specialists appointed by the federal government with a mandate to improve the health of Canadians, increase the efficiency and effectiveness of health services, and formulate related recommendations for the government. It is a forum with a multi-million dollar budget.

The problem is that this forum is looking at a provincial field of jurisdiction, because in Canada the everyday management of health is a provincial responsibility. When there is a problem in a hospital or community health centre or any other kind of health problem, it is the provincial government that is responsible. It is to the province that people must address their questions and inquiries as to why things are not working or their praise when things are working as they should.

The federal government, meanwhile, gives itself the right to meddle in this area by assigning to the forum the very general mandate of improving the health of Canadians and increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of health care. Unfortunately, the provinces were not invited to participate in this forum as full-fledged members. How can the federal government assess the quality of Canadians' health without allowing the main players to participate and have their say in this? This forum has a budget of several millions of dollars and, when we see how difficult it is to fund health care across Canada, we cannot help but think that these millions of dollars could have been better spent elsewhere.

I know that if the people in my region had received any of this money, they would have known exactly what to do with it. Given the need to restructure the system, to reduce the number of beds for seniors, to convert hospitals, if money had been available, if the federal government had withdrawn from health care and allowed the provinces, including Quebec, to act in this area without increasing taxes, interesting solutions could surely have been put forward.

Why is the federal government stubbornly meddling in this area even though it does not have the money to do so? One cannot help but wonder if this has anything to do with the significant impact of health care on voters. Of course, a government with the power to spend as it sees fit, a power only limited by its capacity to borrow, may be tempted to meddle in areas likely to improve its chances of re-election, in areas that may improve the government's image but are none of its business.

For instance, the federal government has a strategy for the integration of people with disabilities, while Quebec has the Office des personnes handicapées du Québec. This is an obvious case of duplication since it is impossible to act in an area like this without part of the budget going to administration. Had the money allocated to the strategy for the integration of people with disabilities been transferred to the provinces, all the money could have gone straight to the handicapped, since most of the administrative costs would already have been borne by the existing bureaucracy.

At the same time there is a federal strategy on violence, an anti-drug policy, an AIDS strategy, the children's bureau, an anti-smoking strategy, all areas in which provincial government take similar action and that require dialogue between the two levels

of government, if duplication is to be prevented. Interface committees have to be established, which involves operating expenditures, but these committees do not provide services directly to the public.

This is important, especially since individual citizens are wondering these days why the system costs so much to operate. Are doctors, the nursing staff or those providing services on the front lines in the hospitals overpaid? Or are there not clearly savings to be made at the administrative level?

When the federal government acts in exactly the same areas as the provinces, we must ask ourselves who is responsible for these areas under the Constitution. It is clearly stated that health matters come under the jurisdiction of the provinces. So, under the cover of an innocuous bill, the federal government is once again meddling in the provinces' affairs. In that sense, it is not playing the role it was intended to play, it keeps interfering in an area over which it does not necessarily have jurisdiction and it could even take conflicting action in certain areas.

There is also an element that is more tendentious, in a sense: federal interference in the form of national standards. This leaves the provinces, who are facing budget cuts, with the unpleasant task of making choices, taking into account population dynamics and ageing. They deal directly with clients and have to make choices in terms of direct service, but at present they do not have all the leeway they could have on behalf of those clients, because spending power in this specific area is in the hands of another level of government, which interferes indirectly.

We are also faced with a somewhat absurd situation. In past decades, the federal government invested a lot of money in that sector and a number of programs were created. Now, we no longer have the means to fund these programs. However, the federal government would never say that it is because less money is being given to the provinces.

It invokes the need for national standards to justify telling the provinces that they must somehow find a way to meet these standards. This puts the provinces in situations which can sometimes be absurd, given that they have no money for certain programs, while spending could be reduced in other sectors, but is not.

Imagine a federal government that would only get involved in those areas for which it is responsible. Imagine the latitude that provinces would have from a taxation point of view, to look after their own areas of jurisdiction. The federal government would then simply have to assume its own responsibilities.

In such a situation, federal cuts affecting national defence could be used by the central government to fulfil its responsibilities. However, withdrawing from an area such as the health sector could also be a way to reduce the size of the federal government, which spends about $1 billion in that sector, even though it does not come under its jurisdiction.

Let me stress my point by mentioning again the areas in which the federal government is involved. There is the issue of family violence. As you know, family violence is the result of a whole set of situations. The Government of Quebec, among others, has implemented policies to deal with this issue. However, federal initiatives do not necessarily complement these policies and there is room for improvement in that regard.

The Bloc Quebecois' position on these issues is not necessarily held only by Quebec sovereignists, or like minded proponents of independence.

As an example, I give you Lucienne Robillard, now a federal minister. At the time, she was Quebec's health minister. On September 27, 1994, she told La Presse , and I quote: ``The behaviour of the federal government makes no sense. How can the health system be overhauled without involving the provinces, which are responsible for the delivery of services? It is quite simply unacceptable''.

I think that says it all. These are the words of the minister, who was a minister in a provincial Liberal government, a federalist provincial government, in reference to the national forum on health on September 27, 1994.

In the same vein, Thérèse Lavoie-Roux, a senator, told the Senate on May 31, 1994 that the government was wrong to neglect the role of the provinces. She asked the following questions, and I quote: "Are the provinces not considered major partners? Why were they not invited to participate in the forum? Does the government leader find it appropriate for the government to be acting unilaterally on a matter of provincial responsibility?"

We must remember how it was that the national forum on health came about. The Prime Minister invited the provinces to take part in the creation of this forum. Talk about hard to believe. Here we have a provincial field of responsibility, and the provinces are relegated to a position of listening to what is going on but not allowed to voice their views, to make suggestions for improvement. Perhaps it was feared that the provinces might indeed make some suggestions. Perhaps the provinces ought to have joined forces to state that the best thing would be for the federal government to pull out of this area and to turn the available funds over to the provinces for their own use.

Despite provincial opposition, despite opposition from such people as the senator, despite submissions from everywhere in Canada, the federal government has decided to continue, to go ahead with its project, to create the national forum on health, solely

for the purpose of meeting the campaign promise that had been made.

How effective was the forum? Are there many people who have seen concrete solutions offered by the forum? Are the millions of dollars spent in this sector being used to improve Canadians' health, as the mandate given it by the federal government would have it?

What more needs to be said to make it clear that the federal government is involved in an area it does not necessarily have any business being involved in? In the bill it is indicated that it could not intervene in areas that are already governed by the health authorities, yet these are described elsewhere in the bill as authorities with which it may have dealings.

In the last budget, the government decided to create a research centre in this area, once again an action that appears totally praiseworthy at first. We are told that health research is really very important, will lead to the develop of new drugs, will help people be healthier.

But if we look a bit further, we see that the provinces have the same mandate. There will be overlap in spending at a time when we cannot afford to do that.

When asked where to cut, we answer: "Eliminate overlap". Health is a case in point, a clear case where the federal government should be made to withdraw from this area. Before passing a bill establishing the health department, in its present form, before granting the minister, as in clause 4, extremely wide powers to take action, we must question the real scope of the clause.

Clause 4 deals with the powers, duties and functions of the minister with regard to health, including:

(a) the promotion and preservation of the physical, mental and social well-being of the people of Canada;

I think that some provincial health ministers must have wondered who was responsible for what when they read this clause.

Paragraph 4(2)(b) says:

(b) the protection of the people of Canada against risks to health and the spreading of diseases;

In this case, the federal government can always invoke the national interest and the federal power related to law and order, and good government to step in to protect the health and safety of the people of Canada.

The concept of good government is an interesting one, but one which is open to abuse. Perhaps this bill should have been better framed, better defined, to state clearly in which fields the federal government is allowed to take action and to limit it to those.

For instance, when we talk about health care for natives, we realize that the Constitution provides the legal basis for action. But when we talk about getting involved in people's health in general, we realize that under the Constitution, this is under provincial jurisdiction, and we question whether it is legitimate to keep on interfering in this area.

As a matter of fact, had it not been for the possibility, in the beginning, in the sixties and seventies, to use the spending power, that is to tax citizens to provide them with services in order to make the federal government more visible, it is unlikely that such interference would have occurred.

After the second world war, the federal government realized that with the power to levy taxes it had increased through income tax, it weilded great political power. So it tried to implement a universal, Canada-wide health system to provide the same services all over the country. However, there are different regions in Canada and, since there are two levels of government, different provinces can make different choices according to what their citizens want.

The power the federal government wields, through national standards, allows it to try to impose the same behaviour to all provincial governments, but this is not necessarily good. If Quebecers and Canadians had wanted that, they would have said so and the Constitution would provide for this area to come under federal jurisdiction, but it is not the case. This is not what is in the Constitution.

For many who are involved with federal programs the reality is always the same. Take, for example, the new horizons program. The orientation of that program has changed from year to year, at the whim of successive governments. There were years where seniors' clubs in various municipalities were able to buy very useful equipment. Suddenly, last year, the program changed direction, but the connection between that change and the needs of the people was not at all clear.

Today, the new horizons program is aimed at specific clients who would be in a difficult situation. I do not know it members see the direct link there is with the local implementation of CLSC policies. Local community service centres have mandates to help seniors, but they do not have the financial resources of such programs as the new horizons program; they see this as federal involvement that, often, goes against their own action. There are fields of activity where the action of the federal government may go directly against the action of the provinces, and it is very difficult to understand exactly what the federal government's objective is, in that regard.

There are other fields of activity. For instance the fight against AIDS and drug enforcement. In the past, there were different approaches according to different governments. The federal government might prefer a more punitive approach. The provincial government might prefer an approach that will correct behaviour patterns. In the case of young offenders, for example, we have seen

provincial governments-the Quebec government, among others-put in place systems such as the Direction de la protection de la jeunesse, and different sectors where crime has been greatly reduced in Quebec. This has a direct link with to the health issue.

If the federal government chooses a totally differing line of action, then it is a disservice to the people, and services are not as efficient as possible.

In conclusion, I think that, in this era of dwindling financial resources that calls for very wise choices, the federal government-instead of creating a department like the Department of Health and meddling in areas of provincial jurisdiction-should consider withdrawing from health care and transferring the money to the provinces so that each of them can provide services that meet the needs of the people.

A province with a widely scattered or a sizeable rural population and one with large urban centres can make very different health choices. It might be unwise to try to impose the same standards on both.

This is also directly linked to the provinces' respective policies regarding development and other matters. Health is not simply a matter of spending money on drugs. It is the result of the actions taken by the various stakeholders in society.

I think that, in the past, the federal government's actions in the area of health, because of the amount of money available, led to the development of some worthwhile programs. Today, however, its attempt to impose very high standards while at the same time reducing the amount transferred to the provinces so they can provide these services puts people before a difficult choice, as the federal government will be assessed on the basis of its programs.

People put pressure on the governments to develop programs against family violence, for instance. Yet, the provinces, which are responsible in this area, cannot afford to take action, because the federal government does not give them the means to do so. Taxpayers are stretched to the limit. In the end, people are in no position to assess the quality of health care. They tend to blame the government providing the services, when the cuts are made by the government that continues to collect the taxes without providing the expected services.

[The Speaker]

It being almost 2 p.m., we will proceed to Statements by Members. I know full well the member for Calgary Centre is itching to get to his feet, and he will be the first speaker when we resume.

Ytv Achievement Awards

[Georgette Sheridan, Liberal, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to 36 young Canadians who are recipients of the seventh annual YTV Achievement Awards and to welcome them to the national capital region.

These outstanding young achievers were chosen from among 1,500 nominees across the country. Each one has an incredible story to tell. Some have been recognized for their bravery, others for their public service or even their entrepreneurial skills. Among their numbers are writers, visual artists, dancers, musicians, singers, actors, athletes, but all have been recognized by the YTV Achievement Awards for these talents.

As a member of Parliament for Saskatchewan, I offer my congratulations to all these young Canadians, with a special tip of the hat to Mr. Shane Cuddington, 17 years old from Manor, Saskatchewan, a constituent of my friend and colleague, the member for Souris-Moose Mountain.

Shane has been recognized for his entrepreneurial skills, having started a landscaping business providing an ever increasing and more specialized variety of services to some 200 clients.

Shane will be among the award winners at the YTV awards to be broadcast live on Sunday, April 28 from Toronto.

Chavigny Jazz V Band

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Trois-Rivières, I would like to pay tribute to the Chavigny Jazz V band, from École secondaire Chavigny of Trois-Rivières-Ouest, which won many awards last March at the All American Music Festival, a North American competition which was held in Orlando, Florida, and in which approximately 20 bands took part.

Chavigny Jazz V won first prize in the jazz band category and also won first prize overall. The band's musical director, Michelle Bourassa, was awarded the title of best musical director.

This success is the result of five years of efforts, during which Chavigny Jazz V consistently beat the competition in Quebec.

Congratulations to the 20 member band, to Mrs. Bourassa and to the parents without whose dedication this great accomplishment, which is an honour to all Quebecers, would not have been possible.

Endangered Species

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last year the Deputy Prime Minister proposed an endangered species act. She claimed it would help prevent Canadian species from becoming extinct. The difficulty is that the proposal only covered 4 per cent of all of Canada's land and it failed to consider the most important aspect, species habitat. Habitat protection must be the cornerstone of any endangered species legislation. There is no other way.

Last Thursday, 16 new species were added to Canada's growing list of species at risk. Canada's new environment minister wants to make us believe that his government is working toward sustainable development except his words are meaningless unless he can assure Canadians that a new endangered species act will stop further species from becoming extinct.

Today is Earth Day, a day first conceived by environmentalist John McConnell who said that such a day is needed to "celebrate the wonder of life on our planet."

The minister should proceed carefully to preserve the many wonders of life in our country.

Earth Day

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today Canadians celebrate Earth Day with tree plantings and environmental events across our vast country. More than ever before we must as individuals and as a country take responsibility to preserve our planet for future generations.

Allow me to present Erie riding's must list. We must work together to prevent toxic chemicals from entering our air, soil and water resources and to eliminate pollution of every nature everywhere. We must protect our ocean habitats and fish stocks. We must harvest our forests prudently taking care to preserve old growth areas. We must undertake extraction of our mining resources with minimal effect on our fragile ecosystem. We must take all measures necessary to protect our endangered plants and animals. We must use our energy sources wisely and efficiently. Finally, we must contribute to an international plan to reduce global warming.

We have so much to do and so little time. I urge all Canadians to make every day Earth Day.

Truth And Reconciliation Commission

[Elijah Harper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, last week Archbishop Desmond Tutu opened hearings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission which was mandated by the bill entitled "Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation" under the democratic Government of South Africa headed by President Nelson Mandela.

The purpose of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is to look into the gross human rights violations and atrocities in that country, not in search of vengeance but in search of truth, forgiveness and reconciliation. This is not easy work. This was demonstrated by the painful testimony of torture and abuse the commission heard last week.

Last month in Cape Town I had the honour of meeting with Archbishop Tutu. I presented to him the statement of principles and priorities and the reconciliation proclamation that were adopted by the Sacred Assembly held last December in Hull, Quebec.

I hope all Canadians will be inspired by the courage of the South African people.

Tornado

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Bruce—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, April 20 a tornado touched down in my riding of Bruce-Grey. It struck the areas around Williamsford, Holland Centre and Walters Falls. The tornado demolished homes and destroyed property. My deepest sympathies go to the people who suffered property loss or personal injury. Thankfully, no one was killed.

I want to take the opportunity to console those who suffered loss and to pay tribute to those who have volunteered their efforts. Disasters often test the mettle and spirit of a community. I am proud to say that the people of Bruce-Grey have responded generously to those who have suffered damage. I want to recognize members of the Mennonite community who once again have displayed through their actions the true meaning of community spirit.

The damage caused by the tornado though severe is temporary. The goodwill and the strength and character of the people of Bruce-Grey in helping out those in need is an enduring quality of people in my riding.

The Deficit

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this weekend I travelled to three provinces talking to Canadians about building a better future and overcoming the threats to our collective prosperity. We also discussed the cost of Canada's most important social programs. For example, it costs 37 billion federal dollars to keep

our health care and education systems going and to provide benefits for senior citizens.

This year interest payments on the massive federal debt dwarfed the cost of all these vital programs combined. Interest payments are at $48 billion and rising. This is a scandal and the federal government bears full responsibility. The current government has added $100 billion to our children's debt and this has increased our annual interest payments by $10 billion per year since the Liberals took power.

Canadians I talked to realize the biggest threat to our future prosperity is the interest payments being racked up by the current government. This government has set no date to balance the books and is driving Canada into bankruptcy. Shame on the government.

Employment

[Chris Axworthy, NDP, Saskatoon—Clark's Crossing, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Canada needs urgent action to address the plight of millions of unemployed and underemployed Canadians who have been left out and left behind. The jobless figures are a scandal with 1.4 million Canadians out of work and another 800,000 forced to settle for part time jobs.

The current government shows no sense of urgency. The only targets the government has set are inflation targets. Canada needs a serious commitment to attainable targets on income levels, unemployment rates, job creation and sustainable economic growth rates.

The government must adopt a twofold strategy which tackles, not creates, barriers to opportunity for Canadians, including banks with record profits which do not reinvest in Canadians or our communities, institutions which think short term, and employers who fail to train.

The government must use its power to intervene to promote economic development. What about the red book promise to create jobs, jobs, jobs? This government needs to answer the urgent need to get Canadians and Canada working again. The government has a role to play and it should perform it.

National Volunteer Week

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, National Volunteer Week is a time to thank those men and women who devote time and energy to helping those in need, promoting a good cause and improving the quality of life in our communities.

Volunteerism is a tradition as old as this country and it has played a key role in the development of Canadian society. By celebrating National Volunteer Week, we recognize the important contribution of today's volunteers. At the same time, by recognizing them as role models, we are seeking to encourage tomorrow's volunteers.

Special thanks to all those volunteering their services with the hundreds of organizations in my riding. In fact, let us salute volunteers across Canada. They are truly our greatest national asset.

Reform Party

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Reform Party came to Manitoba to try to do something about its declining popularity in that province and elsewhere in Canada. Indeed, it now has the support of barely 10 per cent of Canadians, about a 50 per cent decline since the last general election.

According to a poll conducted by the Reform member for Edmonton Southwest, 55 per cent of his constituents feel that the Reform Party is too radical or extremist.

Don Benham, of the Winnipeg Herald wrote, and I quote:

"Reformers are just as much separatists as Bloc-heads, trapped in the same narrow view that define people by language and region".

This decline in popularity is logical since the Reform Party continues to reject and to condemn its more stable and moderate members, such as the members for Calgary Southeast and Calgary Centre.

The Reform Party is bound to fail because it insists on acting like a regional party frozen in the past and incapable of contributing to unity-

[The Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The member for Saint-Denis has the floor.

Terrorism

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the harsh realities of terrorism were once again brought home last week when a Canadian was among the 18 tourists who were massacred by a gunman outside their hotel in Cairo.

This tragic event reminds us that no one is safe from terrorist acts. Canada must continue to play a major role in the promotion of peace and to voice its opposition to terrorist acts.

I wish to express my deepest condolences to the family and relatives of Nick Petrou from London, Ontario as well as to the Greek government and the families of the 17 Greek citizens who were also among the victims of this tragic incident.

Canadians will mourn the loss of these innocent victims. Terrorism in any form must be condemned and punished.

Earth Day

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to point out that today is Earth Day, an event celebrated throughout the world and whose theme this year is health.

We have all learned at our expense that our health and that of our children are inextricably linked to the quality of the environment that surrounds us. Urban pollution, the presence of heavy metals in water and the thinning of the ozone layer are only a few of the problems that affect our lives.

We must all realize that government regulations, laws and policies alone will not ensure the sustainable development of our economy and of our society.

Each person, community and business must undergo a change of attitude in order to stop jeopardizing the health of future generations. Each has the means to act quickly. It is up to us to make good on our commitments.

Province Of Saskatchewan

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that the government would not recognize my home province as a distinct society.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs wants to call my dear province of Saskatchewan "the principal homeland of the English, Mennonite and Ukrainian fact in Canada". I reject this notion as it goes against the legitimate aspirations and traditional claims of people where I come from.

With our rusty four wheel drive pick-ups, our "John Deere" baseball caps, our muddy boots and our bumper stickers that say "Damn Government", we are obviously the most distinct society in Canada and we want to be recognized as such.

Dangerous Offenders

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday I attended a public meeting in my riding of Parkdale-High Park regarding the placement of pedophile Bobby Oatway in the Keele Street Correctional Centre.

Oatway, a third term federal offender sentenced 10 years for sexual assaults including rape, indecent assault, buggery and bestiality, was brought into our community from British Columbia with no prior consultation with the Citizens Advisory Committee. In fact there was no knowledge of his relocation from B.C. to our community until after his placement.

My constituents are enraged that this individual who has committed atrocious crimes against young children has been placed in a minimum security facility that is close to five elementary schools. Like any parent in this House given similar circumstances, these parents are concerned about their children's safety and the potential denial of these children's basic right to life.

My constituents will continue to hold rallies every Thursday at the facility until there is action from all levels of government to ensure the safety of their children.

Volunteer Work

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this week is National Volunteer Week. According to a study carried out in August 1994 by a polling firm for the Fédération des centres d'action bénévole du Québec, almost 64 per cent of the population of Quebec did some volunteer work during the last 12 months.

Therefore, the federation urges governments, institutions and large companies to become more attuned to the financial needs of volunteer organizations and strongly encourages them to support volunteer work.

The Bloc Quebecois considers most unfortunate the government's decision to cut $1.5 million from grants to community organizations. Grants to women's groups have dropped by 31 per cent in the last 6 years, and the money saved may have gone to more crucial budgets, like the budget of the Council for Canadian Unity or the free flags program.

National Volunteer Week

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of National Volunteer Week I rise today to thank the millions of volunteers working in communities across the country.

During National Volunteer Week we honour people like my constituents, Marion White and Elspeth Hogg, recent recipients of the Canada Volunteer Award. These constituents and countless other Canadians selflessly donate time and energy to people in need.

Over 13 million Canadians are volunteers and collectively we donate services valued at over $16 billion. Our communities thrive because of these generous people, because here in Canada we care about our neighbours and are willing to work hard for the sake of our communities.

In honour of National Volunteer Week, I thank the many many constituents in my riding who give so freely of their time to hospitals, firehalls, schools and service clubs.

Volunteering is about commitment and caring. It is about the power of each one of us to make our world a better place. To all volunteers everywhere I offer my congratulations.

Somalia Inquiry

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, we learned a lot in the papers over the weekend about the Canadian army's actions in the Somalia scandal. We learn in fact a lot more from the papers than we do from the minister in this House.

On April 16, he said, and I quote: "This question casts aspersions on the Armed Forces and on the men and women who serve each day with distinction both at home and abroad. Everyone's reputation is being tarnished by incidents that occurred three years ago".

How could the Minister of National Defence talk in the House about events that happened three years ago, when he knew as he was making this statement here, following an investigation by military police, that documents were being illegally destroyed and falsified up to last September?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is extending the type of questioning we heard last week. He deals with the question of the public affairs branch and the question of documentation.

As the hon. member knows, the Somalia commission will be commencing hearings on Wednesday on this problem. All of the answers the hon. member wants will be forthcoming at the commission.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has responsibilities. He must exercise these responsibilities in this House when questions are put to him on behalf of Canadians who want to know what is happening. He cannot hide behind a committee, when he already knows the answers.

On April 15, the Prime Minister said that the events under investigation took place under another government. Clearly, the Prime Minister had not been informed by the Minister of National Defence that an investigation had been conducted within the army and that despicable events were known to have gone on until September.

Why did the Minister of National Defence not inform his Prime Minister that an investigation by the military police had already revealed orders had been given, under his command, to destroy and falsify documents, up to last September? Why did he hide this from his Prime Minister?