House of Commons Hansard #157 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was businesses.

Topics

Division No. 275Government Orders

7 p.m.

NDP

John Solomon NDP Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote yes on this motion.

Division No. 275Government Orders

7 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

André Harvey Progressive Conservative Chicoutimi, QC

Mr. Speaker, members of our party will be voting in favour of this motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 276Government Orders

7 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I declare the motion carried.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Division No. 276Adjournment Proceedings

7:05 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, I rise today to follow up on a question I put to the government earlier in November.

I asked the Deputy Prime Minister if the government was planning to redefine the way poverty is measured in Canada. I have to say that the response I received was very pathetic. Rather than address the very serious question about changing the low income cutoff for the definition of how we measure poverty in Canada, the government fell back on its usual line which was to say that its commitment to eradicate poverty was nothing more than the child tax benefit.

Every single time members of the opposition have raised in the House the issue about the growth in child poverty and the growth in poverty in Canada, we have had the same response from the government, that $850 million has been committed to the child tax benefit. If any member of the government took the time to examine the statistics, the facts and the record about what really has happened with the child tax benefit, they would know that the reality is that the poorest of children received less benefit from the child tax benefit in 1997 than they did in 1984.

The only families whose support has increased are the working poor with incomes roughly between $10,000 or $25,000. I point this out because it shows the hypocrisy of the government program. It purports to be concerned about child poverty but the child tax benefit falls far, far short of helping the poorest Canadians, the poorest children. They are worse off than they were in 1984.

In debating this issue briefly tonight, we should recognize that tomorrow is the anniversary of the unanimous resolution in the House of Commons in 1989 to eradicate child poverty by the year 2000. The sad reality is that in Canada not only have we not made any progress but the situation has deteriorated.

To make matters worse, there are suggestions that the government is looking to change how it defines poverty. It reminds me of a statement made by a social policy consultant, Mr. Shillington, who said to beware of those who would address child poverty by discussing its definition rather than its root causes.

The question is still before us. We have not yet had an answer. Is the Liberal government planning behind closed doors to look at a redefinition of how we measure poverty in Canada?

The reason for bringing this up is that at the finance committee on October 14, the Liberal member for Mississauga South asked the finance minister “Do you believe the government should redefine or define in the first instance true poverty in Canada, true poverty where we are talking about food, clothing and shelter?” The response from the finance minister in part was “I think it would be quite helpful in fact to have a definition of poverty that is not a relative definition of poverty”.

That sends out huge warning signs that the government is looking at redefining the way it measures poverty. It really begs the question—

Division No. 276Adjournment Proceedings

7:05 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

I am afraid that the time has run out.

Division No. 276Adjournment Proceedings

7:10 p.m.

Oakville Ontario

Liberal

Bonnie Brown LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development

Madam Speaker, the idea that instead of acting to address poverty the Government of Canada is simply trying to define poverty away is a grave misunderstanding of what the government stands for.

Rather, the government has consistently demonstrated its concern and commitment to low income Canadians and especially the needs of children and youth. For instance, the government, in partnership with provincial and territorial governments, has taken action in the area of child poverty and has made children a priority through the national child benefit. The benefit will help low income parents to improve their circumstances.

By the year 2000 a total of $1.7 billion per year of new money will be directed to low income families. This is over and above the $5.1 billion the government spends on families with children year after year.

The member opposite has made clear that this $1.7 billion on top of the $5.1 billion does not impress her. Perhaps this is because she arrived in this place at a time when the government had begun to reverse the fiscal situation that we all faced when we first came here in 1993. Had she been here at that time she might realize that any new money was pretty miraculous, considering we had been through years of doing nothing but cutting. We are pretty proud of the fact, and maybe we do overstate it, that the first new money we spent was on families with children who are in poverty.

The government is concerned with the measurement of poverty as well but not in the way she implied in her question. The fact is that among experts there is no consensus around the existing measures of poverty. Some think existing measures are too high and some think they are not high enough.

Statistics Canada has stated that its low income cutoff, a measure used by many—

Division No. 276Adjournment Proceedings

7:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

I am sorry but I must interrupt the parliamentary secretary.

Division No. 276Adjournment Proceedings

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

Lynn Myers Liberal Waterloo—Wellington, ON

Madam Speaker, illegal immigration is becoming a big problem in Canada.

A recent report given to the federal government has indicated that as many as 16,000 illegal immigrants are entering Canada every year with the help of smugglers. Whether they are entering the country by boat, on land or through the air, the number of illegal immigrants passing the borders and coming into the country is costing the Canadian taxpayer an enormous amount of money.

Whether it be in the processing of false immigration claims or in the fighting of organized crime in which a large number of illegal immigrants are involved, the money being spent in relation to this problem continues to grow.

The trafficking of illegal immigrants is becoming a profitable business and furthermore an international business. Smugglers have set up syndicates for these types of operations in countries around the world.

This demonstrates how vast the problem really is and how much of a global dilemma it is becoming. Not only should we deal with the problem here in Canada but the issue should also be dealt with internationally.

The costs that the federal and provincial governments have to cover also include over $400 million a year for the handling and processing of false refugee claimants. Moreover, it has been estimated that each claimant costs the government $50,000 in social benefits.

The study that I mentioned earlier indicates that between 30% and 60% of the claimants that approach the Canadian government lack proper documents. In addition, experts estimate that most of the people without documentation are linked to smugglers.

Some people can be expected to pay up to $50,000 to be transported into countries such as Canada, although the price does depend on the destination and complexity of the circumstances surrounding the trip. However, since most recently apprehended smugglers have received fairly lenient sentences, the majority of them claim that the risk is worthwhile.

These newly arrived people often enter our country with substantial debt due to the enormous price they had to pay to be transported across the border. Most really could not afford the high costs but often found it necessary to leave their homes anyway and head for another country. Imagining they would be able to repay it once they had found employment at their destination, they often arrive and have trouble finding a job, which becomes problematic. Many of them then become involved in low paying jobs or other things and some in fact become involved in criminal activity, which also becomes a problem. This obviously contributes to the rise in crime in Canada.

The organized crime problem in Canada is a multibillion dollar burden on society. This study given to the federal government maintains that the illegal immigration problem that we are encountering is doing nothing but adding to the already tremendous amount of money that is coming out the country's pockets. Illegal immigrants are adding to Canada's costs of operation, both in fighting crime and in processing false immigration claims. Something needs to be done.

I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General once again what he proposes be done to suppress this problem. We need to do something about this on a national level and then bring it to the attention of an international forum. How can we as Canadians rectify this problem?

Division No. 276Adjournment Proceedings

7:15 p.m.

Brossard—La Prairie Québec

Liberal

Jacques Saada LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada

Madam Speaker, first, I want to thank the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington for his very pertinent question.

The fact is that the federal government has made the prevention and interdiction of illegal immigrants trafficking one of its priorities, precisely for the reasons mentioned by the hon. member. Indeed, according to the report to which my colleague made reference, it is estimated that, every year, up to 16,000 people enter Canada with the help of smugglers.

Based on that report, this illegal activity may generate up to $400 million in illicit profits. In light of this, I can certainly understand the hon. member's concern. To curb such activity, Canada has made the smuggling of aliens a criminal offence entrenched in our national legislation and carrying stiff penalties.

Also, Canadian officials from a number of federal departments are co-operating with their counterparts in other UN countries on a convention on transnational organized crime. One potential related protocol would deal with the smuggling of aliens. Canadian officials are actively involved in various international initiatives, particularly those of the G-8 Lyon group on organized crime, and conducting major international consultations on the asylum policies in Europe.

At home, officials from the RCMP and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration continue to co-operate across the country and through our missions abroad to put an end to these activities.

We will continue to work together with our partners in order to fight this criminal activity and any other form of organized crime.

I can only repeat how much I share my hon. colleague's concern and that, as he indicated, both national and international solutions must be sought. This is a priority. Fighting organized crime is the solicitor general's top priority.

Division No. 276Adjournment Proceedings

7:15 p.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to pursue some questions I raised in the House on June 2, 1998.

My question pertains specifically to the issue of Meme breast implants and more broadly about the state of affairs in the health protection branch. The answers to both of my questions were incomplete and certainly not pertinent to the serious situation which I posed to this Chamber.

I raised specifically the concerns about the criminal investigation launched last June into the breast implant issue and asked why the government had taken so long to pursue this very serious issue after it had been raised nine years previously by a former colleague of mine, Joy Langan, from British Columbia.

I further asked the minister about the government's ability to assess and ensure the safety of current breast implant products on the market, along with my colleague, the Leader of the New Democratic Party. In both instances we found that the answers were very superficial and did not deal with the gravity of the situation.

It is absolutely clear that we are dealing with the two-pronged situation of women who suffered the consequences of inadequate protection from the government many years ago with respect to the breast implant product, and of the concerns we have today with respect to products now on the market. We have very serious worries about whether this government is actually ensuring the safety of those products.

Some of the experts in the field have actually said that present day saline filled breast implants are the same design over which a plastic surgeon sued the manufacturer in the mid-1980s. All such devices have the same leaky valves that cannot hold water. They grow algae and fungi like a dirty aquarium.

We would like to hear specifically what steps this government is taking to assess products on the market to ensure that they are safe beyond any reasonable doubt.

We also raised more broadly the issue of the role of the health protection branch because we are not just dealing with the question of a criminal investigation into breast implants, but also a criminal investigation into the safety of our blood supply. We are dealing with serious sworn testimony from scientists about gag orders, about intimidation, about threats, about pressure to approve a bovine growth hormone when they do not believe it is safe.

We are dealing with a pattern of inconsistency and secrecy throughout the department in a number of areas. We are dealing with a situation where the drug approval process is largely paid for by the pharmaceutical industry. This all adds up to a very grave situation that requires the government to take immediate and prompt action.

That is why we have called for a complete investigation into the health protection branch on an urgent basis. We have raised this suggestion on numerous occasions since last spring. We will continue our efforts to implore the Minister of Health to take these concerns seriously and get to the bottom of what many would call a culture of deception in the health protection branch.

Division No. 276Adjournment Proceedings

7:20 p.m.

Brossard—La Prairie Québec

Liberal

Jacques Saada LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for her question.

I recognize that certain allegations have been made against the health protection branch of the department of my colleague, the Minister of Health.

The Ministry of Health is taking a number of measures to restore trust and morale among staff and credibility with the public. I repeat, credibility with the public. This includes the establishment of expert advisory committees to guide scientific decision making and resolve scientific disputes.

Over the longer term, the Minister of Health will examine the function of public health protection in the context of an integrated federal role. He will then have to consider three important issues.

First, we need a process for decision making that delineates each step in the development of risk management strategies.

Second, we need to expand the traditional communications function to have a broader public affairs orientation.

Finally, we need to address fundamental human resources and organizational culture issues, such as the need for scientific staff to understand the larger context in which their work takes place.

The Minister of Health is looking at the best possible standards of service to protect public health and safety, which is—I repeat—an objective that we share.

Division No. 276Adjournment Proceedings

7:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.21 p.m.)