Debates of Nov. 16th, 1999

Municipal Grants Act

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thought the deputy whip herself was going to engage in giving a speech rather than asking a question. I was hunting and searching and looking for an actual question in those comments. I think what the hon. member wanted me to do was thank her. I say no thanks to everything that the Liberal government—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, I stand to speak to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Municipal Grants Act.

I would like to put on the record the purpose of this act, which is to provide for the fair and equitable administration of payments in lieu of taxes. It addresses the issues of compensation for untimely payment, defaults on tax obligations by certain tenants of the crown and the bijural nature of the Canadian legal system. Additionally, it establishes an advisory panel to advise the minister on disputes concerning payment amounts. It also amends the title of the act to the payments in lieu of taxes act. That is the purpose of the act. That is the purpose of the debate.

We tend to differ in the description, but that is the description provided to us by the government.

Let us take a look at the relationship of the municipal government to the provincial government and then to the federal government. About 15 years ago, long before I ever thought I would be crazy enough to get involved in politics, I vividly recall sitting in front of my television set watching Allan MacEachen, the then Liberal finance minister, waxing eloquently from his place in the House. He was going on about the fact that the Liberal government of the day, of which the Liberal government today is simply a carbon copy, was going to balance its books. In a typical Liberal sleight of hand, what it was basically doing was offloading expenses from itself to the provinces.

Living in the province of British Columbia at that particular time, as I recall, things were at a rather tight juncture. It was in the early eighties. We had been slapped with the grossly ill-conceived concept of the national energy plan of the Liberals, the centrist plan that pulled about $80 billion permanently out of western Canada into central Canada. I recall thinking to myself at the time that the downloading to the provinces which Mr. MacEachen was talking about and the fact that the province of British Columbia was in no position to actually do anything about it, undoubtedly would end up appearing on my taxes, and would undoubtedly come out of my pocket, one way or the other, particularly as a homeowner.

It did not take long. The reality was that although the federal tax take out of my wallet and the wallets of my neighbours was not diminished, and the tax take out of my wallet and the wallets of my neighbours by the province was not diminished, the government ended up downloading it to the regional district in which I lived, which was the equivalent of a municipality. By downloading it what basically happened was that my property taxes went up by $200 that year.

A Liberal finance minister stood here about 15 years ago and waxed eloquently about how he was going to get federal taxes under control and how he was coming closer to balancing the books, but of course the government never did. It just kept on adding and adding to what is now the massive national debt. The government talked about how it was going to get things under control, but I knew, because it was being announced by a Liberal, that there was going to be more money coming out of my pocket.

I would take the Liberal member for Oak Ridges at his word if the municipalities were looking at this, were involved in it and had some input into it, but unfortunately they are faced with the reality that they are at the bottom of the food chain as far as being able to look after themselves and being able to take care of their own fiscal requirements.

I should add that one of the great things about municipal finances is that on a year to year basis municipalities may not go into a debt or deficit situation. The government could certainly take lessons from that. It is something for which the municipal politicians deserve great credit. The fact is, they have to come up constantly with the delivery of services for people at the municipal and regional district levels. The municipalities manage to deliver services, be they to people, be they for reasons of property, or just the services of cleaning roads and streets, in spite of all the offloading of the Liberals in Ottawa. Let us be clear, it was the Liberals who downloaded all of the expense that has sifted down through to the provinces and on down through to the municipalities. Once again the taxpayer is being double whammied by the Liberals.

Why do I say that I understand what the member for Oak Ridges was saying, particularly with his involvement and the involvement of other members of this House in municipal governments? Why do I say that I understand where they are coming from in terms of the municipal governments being let in on some of the ideas that the federal government has, at the same time knowing that they have a gigantic club over their heads? They do the best they can. They make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, to use the old saying.

I should also add that I was rather interested in this prominent Liberal member's musings that perhaps the middleman should be eliminated, namely the provinces; that somehow the municipalities and regional districts would be better off if they were dealing directly with the federal government. Heaven help them. When we shake hands with these people we wonder if we will still have our wedding rings.

Municipal governments are creatures of provincial governments. They are not recognized under Canada's constitution. They are completely under the direction, the control and the legislative authority of the provinces. The member suggested that we eliminate the middleman. That is to say, maybe we should remove the direct control of the municipalities which are delivering the services closest to the people, closest to their homes. This is the garbage collection. This is the social services cheque. This is the street cleaning. This is making sure that the gutters are clean and the leaves are removed. These are the details of everybody's life. Should we take the current authority for that, the provincial government, which heaven only knows is far enough away in most situations, and give it to Ottawa? That would mean that the municipalities and regional districts would answer to, be responsible to and be under the legislative authority of the federal government. I do not think so.

The government talks frequently about the infrastructure program. Let us take a look at how this act, Bill C-10, an act to amend the Municipal Grants Act, relates to the income of the municipalities. Looking at the past infrastructure program—and I understand that there is a proposed program coming, just in time for the next election no doubt—wondering why the municipalities express being in favour of it is not rocket science. It is very simple and straightforward.

So far I have described the problems which municipalities face because of the offloading of expenses from the federal level to the provincial level and ultimately to the municipal level, the municipal level having to work on a deficit free budget year in and year out. The municipalities are faced with a cash crunch. There are so many hands in their pockets from the authorities higher up, there are so many strings attached to any money that is available to them, that they will take any money they can get for needed capital projects.

Why are they not carrying on with capital projects without an infrastructure program? Because this government has attacked their very tax base. They do not have a tax base from which they can get the funds to do the things on their own.

It makes me think of the government's attitude toward the family. The government will take $6 billion from people earning under $20,000 a year this year. It will take $6 billion in taxes, give them peanuts back and say, “Here is a little grant and another little grant. Are we not wonderful people?” The government will continue to have its hands in the pockets of individual Canadians, businesses and municipalities. It will continue to act like a gigantic vacuum cleaner. It will bring all the cash here to the bureaucracy in Ottawa, then turn around and give a pittance back.

The municipalities in light of that look at an infrastructure program and say, “Now we are getting something a little bigger than the pittance we normally receive. Now we are supposedly getting two-thirds free money”.

This is the way the infrastructure programs basically work. Let us say a municipality wanted an intersection upgrade. That is very easy. For different traffic islands, curbing, traffic lights and signals, it is easy to invest $1 million in infrastructure like that. Let us simplify it and say it will cost $900,000. The municipality has to raise $300,000. The province has to match that with another $300,000. The federal government can match it with another $300,000.

It is interesting that for just under $1 million for an infrastructure program, the federal government only invests $300,000 and gets all the credit for it. It is an absolutely wonderful, masterful way of moving around a pea under shells. The government manages to baffle people who are not necessarily prepared to take the time to understand just how far the government has its hands in the pockets of individuals, businesses and municipalities.

As a creature of the provincial government, one of the difficulties municipalities have is when they do their budgeting. This varies from province to province, but as a blanket statement it seems to me that in doing their budgeting, the municipalities are never really sure of what the actual grants will be from the provincial government. In turn, one of the concerns I have about this or any other legislation, is rather than being tied into something concrete, hard and normal, Bill C-10, an act to amend the Municipal Grants Act, does not resolve the problem of where the money is going to come from.

According to Bill C-10, the minister is given the authority to pay interest on the payments in lieu of taxes if, in his opinion, that payment in whole or in part has been unreasonably delayed. That is just about as soft and mushy a bunch of words as I have ever seen in any act.

In the minister's opinion. Who is to say what the minister's opinion is going to be? Unreasonably delayed. Who is going to set the yardstick for what is reasonable or unreasonable?

On third party leases, the government leases some of its properties to non-departmental third parties. In the past, municipalities have experienced difficulty in collecting property taxes from these third parties with payment sometimes never being made.

To correct this situation, Bill C-10 proposes that if, as of the day following the last day of the taxation year, all or part of the taxes remain unpaid and if, and here we go again, “the minister is of the opinion”—that is the qualifier—“that the taxing authority has made all reasonable efforts to collect the tax and there is no likelihood that the authority will ever be able to collect it”, then the property will be deemed to be a federal property and the federal government will pay the payment in lieu of taxes.

Again, as with all the legislation, without exception, that is ever brought forward by this government, there is all of this continuing latitude for the minister, “in the opinion of”, “if it is unreasonably delayed” and things that are simply not clear and not made definite.

It is absolutely paramount that the municipal authorities are able to do their budgeting. They already have a serious problem. In various provincial jurisdictions the province may be treating them fairly and in a timely manner, and in other provincial jurisdictions they may not. It can vary in treatment from place to place even within a given province.

Bill C-10, an act to amend the Municipal Grants Act, continues with all this latitude for the minister, “in the opinion of” and “if it is unreasonably delayed”.

Why are the municipalities having difficulty in providing the level of service that people want, expect and deserve? This will vary from municipality to municipality. While it is mandated under their current spending that they may not go into deficit, they may nonetheless become involved in capital spending through borrowing. Some municipalities have gone into debt quite seriously. They go ahead with heavy municipal borrowing so they can go ahead with infrastructure programs.

That is the reason many municipalities respond very positively to the infrastructure program. It simply gives them back money that has already been extracted from them, from their constituency and from their province, but they nonetheless respond positively to it. Other municipalities will have decided that they are going to use a pay as you go basis with respect to the majority of their capital expenditures.

In the municipality of Cranbrook, where my constituency office is, there is a very serious challenge in terms of the streets. The city proper of about 15,000 is actually built on an old glacial gravel bed. Down under the topsoil, which is only a couple of inches, there is a deep gravel bed. This has created a serious problem for the main streets and side streets. As the city has grown, and as the amount of truck traffic in particular has increased on the feeder streets, the side streets simply have not stood up. As a consequence there is a constant battle of the budget.

I do not own property in Cranbrook. Therefore I am not offering an opinion, but an observation. The challenge is to say that a street is in such a state of disrepair that it requires temporary remedial action or that a very large volume of money is going to be spent to go down as far as 8 feet or 10 feet into the gravel so that the street can be built back up again and it will be permanently changed.

These are the kinds of challenges that municipalities are faced with on a month to month basis, particularly in Canada. With the exception of the lower mainland of British Columbia, we have a very harsh climate that drives the frost well down into the ground and into the services that are underneath the roads.

The point I am trying to drive at is that municipalities need more than anything the assurance of funding, where the money is going to come from. The province of British Columbia because of the NDP government of the last term and a half has a terrible situation. The government is having to extract more and more from the municipalities which is putting them at a real disadvantage.

In conclusion, my concern about Bill C-10 is simply this. What we need in our province, and I believe for that matter in all provinces for all municipalities, is more surety of funding. Unfortunately in my judgment, Bill C-10, an act to amend the Municipal Grants Act, does not provide that surety.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am becoming concerned about members of the Reform Party and their ability to develop myths. I choose that word so that I can be parliamentary. The bigger the myth the better.

For example, they are paranoid about first nations people and they build the myth that one of the more disadvantaged minorities in Canada is somehow taking over the country.

Another big myth which they develop has to do with crime. They are obsessed with crime, with petty crime. They deliberately build up a fearmongering approach, ignoring the fact that statistics show that crime has been decreasing in Canada. They build a myth instead of presenting the real facts.

In this debate we have heard members of the Reform Party build another myth. It is the myth of top down big government. Among other things, that myth demeans the other levels of government including the municipalities.

There was a time when the members opposite could have been members of parliament here, they could have been MLAs and they could have been local councillors all at the same time. That was the way it was in Canada. At that time power was held by a clique. That clique of people, almost all of them men, held all of those positions.

Since that time what has happened is that we have not developed a top down government. That is what it was in those days. A small group of people held every level of government in their hands. Since then we have developed a truly strong, decentralized democracy, arguably the most effective decentralized democracy in the world.

Instead of there being a pyramid with the federal government at the top and the municipalities at the bottom, the reality is that we have three levels of government which are something like three Olympic rings. Each of them is fully democratic, fully elected, with great powers of raising taxes, with great powers of spending taxes and making decisions in their sphere of interest.

Those three areas of government overlap, just like the Olympic rings. I am not allowed to use props, but if I could, I could show how the overlapping works. They have large areas of their own responsibility and there is a small area in the middle where there is responsibility which is federal, provincial and municipal.

Those rings are in my mind. I do not know how those members work and they may work in a top down fashion, but in my riding I work out of my ring with the other three rings. We work very effectively. Where there is overlap, we work together to deal with the issues concerned. I would suggest that those rings are the main checks and balances in Canada. That is how our people are represented at various levels.

I believe that in the discussion the members of the Reform Party have been demeaning the municipalities and the goodwill and the judgment of people at the local level. If they are so cynical, so biased, so uninformed about the role of the particular ring which is the federal government, why do they not simply run at the municipal level?

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have heard some interventions in my day but that one certainly took the cake.

First, if he takes a look at the blues from my speech the member might find that I made absolutely no comment whatsoever about first nations. I have many things that I would like to say about first nations, not the least of which is that the government has an undemocratic approach to anything to do with first nations. However, that is a topic he raised that was not contained in my speech.

Second, I did not say anything whatsoever about crime, petty crime, and I categorically reject the concept he has proposed that we are fearmongering. It is this government that is turning around and is buying an aircraft for Correction Services Canada to be able to transport a growing number of violent criminals. It is this government that is doing it, not the opposition, but that is another topic I did not talk to.

I did talk about top down big government. There is the golden rule. The golden rule is very simple. He who has the gold rules. The government manages to attract such a sufficient amount of gold that it gets to rule. That is the reality.

The reality is that the parliamentary system has evolved over a period of time both under the Progressive Conservatives and under the Liberals. We now have what is the equivalent of a four year dictatorship where the Prime Minister is elected and then he chooses to turn his back on the responses he is receiving from the people of Canada. He simply directs the people in his backbenches as to when they will stand up and when they will sit down, like a bunch of sheep. This is the reality in Canada.

In terms of the decentralized democracy again that is a myth. The decentralized democracy we are talking about here, the three levels of government the member was talking about and the overlap he was talking about are there in theory. The fact of the matter is that the major power of raising taxes is in the hands of the Prime Minister and the finance minister.

If that were not the case, why were the finance ministers of the provinces coalescing yesterday to try and come up with a joint program to bring to the finance minister? They did it in all good faith. They asked how they could bring this about, what is the common position and how they could co-operate because they have to gang up as best they can against the town bully, namely the Liberal Party which is in power in Ottawa at this particular time.

To suggest that I am demeaning municipalities is a gross misunderstanding and I suggest an intentional misunderstanding on the part of the member for Peterborough.

I was not demeaning municipalities. I was standing here in defence of municipalities, saying that municipalities require a break. Municipalities, if anything, require legislation that would put them on to a proper and equal footing with other levels of government. As I say, right at this moment they happen to be a creature of the provincial government.

In conclusion, what can I say? With that kind of an intervention I can only assume that the member was not listening or is choosing to interpret in his own way my comments, which is unfortunate because I am standing here in support of bringing strength to municipalities and their financing, and this bill will not do it.

[Carolyn Parrish, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will keep my comments very simple. My colleague talked about broad Olympic circles. I will talk about prunes.

This is one of those bills where we think we are delivering strawberries to the municipalities. In fact they are getting predictability. They are getting fair payment. We are no longer calling them that glorious regal term, grants, but we are calling them payments.

There is predictability involved, but as usual the Reform Party happens to take the strawberries and turn them into prunes. They are very concerned that the minister at his discretion will pay arrears, at his discretion with pay for tenants who have it pegged, at his discretion will pay in a timely, fair fashion. As usual, the Reform Party has managed to turn an exciting consultative bill into a bowl of prunes.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, prunes come from plums, not from strawberries, so I am having a little difficulty with the mixed metaphor.

It is rather instructive that the member has pointed out that now this payment will be called a payment and not a grant. Whoopee. The title of the thing has been changed. So what? Unemployment insurance is still unemployment insurance. Just because we call it employment insurance does not mean people are any more employed. The wordsmithing that we are into is typical of the kind of window dressing we expect from the Liberal government.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Dewdney—Alouette, APEC Inquiry.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have listened to this very interesting debate. It certainly touches on the grassroots of our country and the first level of government.

When we talk about governments we talk about their powers. Governments must have resources to function. We elect governments basically to protect our rights. The three fundamental human rights of the individual are the right to life, the right to own property, and the right to liberties and freedoms. We elect governments to protect those rights and not to deny us those rights or to take those rights from us.

Through the power of taxation, the whole principle of taxation is to take a certain amount of the wealth created by the people to provide services that individuals cannot provide for themselves and which a specific level of government can.

When we look at the powers of taxation at the three levels we find there is no limit on the power of governments to tax away the wealth created by the people. When we look at the municipal level we find the greatest husbanding of resources and the wisest use of those resources at any level of government.

As I pointed out to the House earlier in a question to my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River, for the past six years I have made it a practice to visit with my municipal councils as often as I can. I report to them, hear their feedback and offer any assistance I can so that they might understand the programs of government and what the priorities are at the federal level.

I have found that the most fiscally responsible and accountable politicians elected in our country today are at the municipal level. I asked at one council meeting: “How is it that you folks can resist the temptation to find the loopholes, to go into debt and build your empires as they have done at the two senior levels of government?” We see a huge debt at the federal level and in the case of most provinces they carry very significant debt. One councillor said that when they pass a spending resolution they have to meet their people on the street and in the coffee shop the very next day.

He was talking about accountability. Let us look at the lack of accountability at the federal and provincial levels. Those who are responsible for increasing the taxation are taking more wealth from the people who created it for the purpose of providing funding for a program that is supposed to benefit the people. When we look at their enormous and unlimited powers we realize they could simply tax away any amount of wealth from us as they want.

The greatest threat to the economic viability and stability of the family, of the business and of the individual is the unlimited power of governments to take away their wealth through the force of law, and that is what is happening.

We all support the whole concept of an educational system, a health care system and all other priority systems which provide those things that people cannot provide for themselves such as a transportation system, a highway system and so on. We are prepared to have our wealth taxed in order to provide for those programs.

However, when we see governments through the force of law taking that wealth from families and individuals to the point where they become impoverished, where they cannot make ends meet and their children are denied the necessities of life and have to live in poverty or without adequate housing, there is something wrong with the administration of power of those governments in taking the wealth away from the people.

Let us look at the track record of who has done that to the most exorbitant and extreme degree. If we want to look at extremism, we need go no further than to look at the manner in which our federal, provincial and municipal politicians have handled that power in terms of taking reasonable resources and rates of wealth from the people who create the wealth each year to fund programs the people want them to fund.

Governments have absolutely no right to tax money from people for programs which they think are in the best interest of the people without the judgment and the support of the people. They have no right to simply take money and give it to individuals to hang dead rabbits from trees. Although this is probably a rare example and fortunately does not happen too often, it does happen.

There is something wrong when we get to the point where the government is taxing 50 cents of every dollar or 50% of the wealth of anyone making over $35,000 a year for the purpose of giving it back to people through programs. There is no question why the poverty rate is rising. That money is not being dispensed back to individuals according to the priorities of individual families, their children, the heads of the household and so forth.

Let us look at the three levels of government. If I had a choice as to who should be administering a government program I would pick the government with the best financial track record. That is the challenge.

When I look at Bill C-10 I ask myself if it alters my authority as a citizen of Canada to determine who is best at administering a social program or any other program and who can do it most cost effectively. I look for the track record.

We have a federal government with a $585 billion debt and with the highest levels of taxation in the history of the country. We have provincial governments that have debts as well. What does that mean? It means that for years the politicians in charge, those who form the government, have overspent year after year after year. They have had to borrow on top of the high rates of taxation and on top of all the wealth they have taken from the people each year. They have overspent to the point where they have had to borrow again and again and again. Finally this level of government got to the point where it was getting so great that almost 35 cents of every dollar went to pay the interest on the debt.

This year, according to the figures that I see, almost $42 billion was paid to service the interest on the federal debt; $42 billion was taken from the people of this country, those who created the new wealth each year, in order to pay for the terrible mismanagement of our fiscal and monetary affairs over the past 30 years.

When we look at that, some of us ought to hang our heads in shame. Some of those who have gone before us in this House ought to hang their heads in shame that they have saddled our children and grandchildren with a debt so enormous that it may be a milestone around our neck when it comes to ever getting our taxes to a level where they ought to be, where not only can we afford priority programs such as health care, education, proper housing and so on, but where we could reduce taxes so that families do have the means to provide for their children and where we do not have one child in every five reported to be living in poverty.

When I look at the track record to see who has used the power of taxation in the most reasonable and moderate way, there is no question who comes out first. It is municipal governments. Yes, they have legislation which states that they cannot go into debt and cannot deficit finance to the same extent that the provinces and the federal government can, but they can borrow money.

I asked a councillor how they had resisted the temptation to find the loopholes, to go into debt and to build their empires like the two senior levels of government have done. In municipalities with larger cities that type of accountability is lost. We do not meet people on the street the very next day after moving a spending resolution. We do not find that in the larger cities like Toronto, Montreal, Calgary or Edmonton. One of the reasons these cities are in debt is that the degree of accountability is not there as it is in the lower levels of government. What we have been seeking to introduce is a greater degree of accountability.

My colleague who spoke before me referred to the election of a majority government as a four or five year dictatorship with no accountability. That is what we have been facing. That is why we have outrageous government programs that are not supported by the people. Rather than praising the interests of the people, we have them holding their heads wondering why the governments are expending money in this way. There is no accountability.

The accountability contained in a federal election every four or five years or a provincial election every four or five years is insufficient to keep governments from going into debt, from raising taxes, from overspending and from spending money in a manner that will not carry the judgment of the majority.

I do not see anything in the bill other than the maintenance of a lack of accountability. In the minister's opinion, a payment can be made in whole or in part if it is his opinion to do so. If we have to rely on and have faith in the opinion of the minister what does that say about accountability? What if he decides against the will of the people? What if he chooses to say no to a municipality because in his opinion the payment is not due or it must be altered in terms of the amount or the size? What do we do? We cannot do anything.

I have found that the most important issue pressing on the minds of the people is that our three levels of governments, through the force of law, have taken away so much wealth on a yearly and daily basis that it is placing our families and individuals in economic jeopardy. We have cries from all parties when we see that happening. We see farmers going bankrupt, families who are destitute, children who are homeless and a lack of housing. Why? It is because they are not left sufficient resources to look after themselves, their children, their housing and the needs of their family.

What we see is the opposite. We see an unrestrained power to tax away the wealth of the people. If we do not stop it and roll it back then we will see the continuation of statistics reflecting child poverty. When we talk about child poverty, we cannot talk about it without talking about family poverty. Children are not isolated. They have their moms and dads, and their homes, whatever they might be.

Why are we talking about child poverty? We should be talking about poverty, period, in the country. When children are in poverty their moms and dads are in poverty as well. We have to strengthen the economic stability of those families. I see nothing in the bill that will do that.

I am always energized after meeting with municipal councillors and municipal governments in my constituency because they are hard-working, conscientious people who are in touch with their people. They know their concerns. They know who they have to get to when it comes to snow clearing and what areas will be blocked when a snow storm arrives. They have hands-on information and they struggle with meagre means in order to provide some of the most essential services that their citizens need on a day to day basis.

When I look at the track record of our three levels of government, I am always enthused and given hope that if they can keep their spending under control at the municipal level and continue to do the good job they are doing, why can we not do it at the two senior levels of government. The answer to that is that we can do it.

We are spending about $106 billion on programs at the federal level. If we could just maintain that level and use the money wisely, we could begin to leave more wealth in the municipalities. The thing that disturbs me the most is that the federal and provincial tax money comes from the municipalities. It comes from the people who live in the towns, cities and rural areas. They are the ones who create the wealth, the new wealth that is taxed each year. That is where I believe the most complex programs of government should be administered.

The most complex services required by an individual, a child, are those that are provided within the home. As one moves beyond the home, the first level of government should be the one that administers the most complex programs. However, what we see in the country today is that it is turned upside down. The most complex programs of government are administered at the provincial and federal levels by people hundreds if not thousands of miles away who really do not know those people and, in lots of cases because of that, really do not care.

If it was my choice to have a social program administered, I would vote to have it administered by those people who have the finest track record in terms of administration and financial accountability and that is our mayors and our councillors at the municipal level and our reeves and their councillors at the district level.

I do not see in the bill any relief from the concerns that I have seen in my riding in the level of government closest to the people.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my colleague on his excellent speech. As usual, he has made some very interesting points. He and I have had many discussions on various issues. I always welcome his comments.

The previous speaker has been in the House longer than I have so I will ask him for his comments on this. One of the things I noticed after I was elected was that municipal councillors wanted to meet with me regardless of their political affiliation. One of the things that I have always respected about politics at the municipal level, at least where I come from, is that although there may be a political affiliation in terms of working for the greater good of the community, those tend to be put aside.

I have worked with Conservative members of the city council, Liberal members of the city council and New Democrat members of the city council. There are no Reform members on city council in my part of the world yet. I know Reformers may work on that. I have been impressed with the ability to put aside partisan politics in the interest of particular projects.

I think that perhaps we in the House might do well at times to emulate what municipal councillors are able to do. That was my experience with municipal councils. I do not know if that was echoed by the previous speaker, but I would be interested in hearing his thoughts on that.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I often get asked that question when I visit my municipal councils. I might add that we have lots of Reformers in my riding on those municipal councils and they are hard-working, down to earth people.

Would it not be wonderful if the House could work like a municipal council where a problem could be identified and all parties brought to the table to determine the course of action and then allow a vote on that course of action and let the majority determine the course of action?

If we could set aside in many cases the political partisanship that occupies the House much too often at times and simply work for the best interest of the people of the country, I think we could reduce the cost and stop many of the games that occur in the House. I think we could begin to serve the people in a way that they would appreciate, which is not the way they are being served now in all too many areas where there is an identifiable need.

[Derrek Konrad, Reform, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his great speech, but I have another issue.

The federal government passes regulations and laws that affect municipalities without any regard for what they do to their bottom line. It has recently come up with an idea for regulation to reduce the response time at airports. In particular, in the city of Prince Albert it is going to make a couple of minutes difference in the time the fire department can get to the airport. No one in Prince Albert, the council, the mayor, the people who run the airport and the people who use the airport, are concerned about it but the federal government makes this law.

Does the government have any plan in place to ensure that the city can afford the extra cost? No. It is to be passed on to consumers, the users, the airport shuts down, has limited use or something like that. Does the federal government give a hoot? It does not seem to as yet, despite the fact that we have made some interventions.

I would like to point out something else. When there is a disagreement in the private sector about property values, how is it handled? It is handled through a formal process with appeals. Once the appeals have been heard they are binding.

Is it that way with the federal government? Not at all. The federal government operates strictly on its own. It sets the rules. It sets the rules for appeals and all the rest of it. Even when it finally decides on something through the municipal grants review committee the minister is not obliged to accept the recommendations given, so the municipalities feel that the process does not work in their favour.

I would like to turn to the so-called Nisga'a final agreement and read from paragraph 7 on taxation and fiscal relations:

The Parties will negotiate and attempt to reach agreements in respect of grants, between them, in lieu of property taxes.

When we read all the way through the agreement we do not find that the federal government will simply enforce something on the Nisga'a people. However, we do not see an appeal process. We do not see anything. We see that it will sit down and attempt to reach an agreement. Who will determine when an agreement has been reached? It says in here that we will go through this every five years. Paragraph 3 reads:

Every five years, or at other intervals if the Parties agree, the Parties will negotiate and attempt to reach agreement on a fiscal financing agreement by which funding will be provided—

We presume that will also include transfers and payments in lieu of taxes. This agreement is very open ended. In the case of the bill before us it is not even open ended. It is closed. The federal governments sets the limits, and that is as far as it goes.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is like my colleague said earlier, the golden rule is that he who has the gold sets the rules.

If the Nisga'a follow the agreement and the federal government says that it disagrees with regard to the cost or the moneys they feel should be expended in these areas, what then do the Nisga'a do? The government will have complied with the requirements of the agreement, but if all the power is left on the side of the government, for which the agreement allows, then what do the Nisga'a do?

When it comes to what the government is doing in the municipalities with the airports and fire services provided, again the government is deciding what is best for the people without any negotiation. It is imposing its will upon these people without consideration for the costs whatever.

I am also receiving concerns in this regard from my municipality. This is what is wrong with the federal level of government. When it sets rules or passes bills, it does not consult sufficiently with the people upon whom they will impact, both in terms of effect and who will pay for them. That is wrong and that is what is wrong with this level of government.

[Carolyn Parrish, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on behalf of the big bad government. Sitting here listening, I feel so mean.

The member talks about the way the government consults on how it sets the tax levels. The policy initiatives in the bill say that we will develop the best practises for the valuation of special purpose federal properties. We will seek stakeholder advice regarding appointments to and management of the dispute advisory panel. We will commit to consulting assessment and taxation authorities wherever possible and whenever possible regarding the valuation of federal property.

We have consulted across the country. As a former municipal politician I feel thoroughly consulted with. I feel that the set up in the bill gives many recourses for expert advice on the setting of property tax. This is not a great mystery. Property tax is pretty fundamental from province to province.

I think the initiatives are there. I think we have addressed the hon. member's concerns. Again, I am very sorry the Reform Party seems to be sour on everything.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when you put a piece of fruit in your mouth and it is sour, it is sour. If we could all be reasonable people and negotiate on terms that are fair, it would be wonderful and it would work.

Who has the final say? It is not the municipalities. It is the federal government that has the final say. We can negotiate and negotiate and negotiate but who has the final say? It is not a level playing field. It would be wonderful if the negotiations could occur with people who are fair minded. Often that is not the case.

Who makes the final decision? The person who has the final say. In this case it is the federal government. It has always been the federal government. If that were not the case, why is it imposing regulations upon our municipal airports without consultation and leaving them with the cost? That is exactly the same kind of scenario we see here.

The government is supposed to negotiate but what if it does not? What if it simply imposes as it is imposing fire regulations at airports? Municipalities are struggling with limited budgets. Because the federal and provincial governments are taking so much of the wealth out of the municipalities, there is very little left for them to tax and they have to pick up the cost. That is why it is not working and that is why—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry but the hon. member's time expired some time ago.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure I can rise to the occasion as my good friend just did, but I too would like to raise some problems and to advise the government of some difficulties I see with the bill in some areas where I think it is somewhat negligent.

I am told that the purpose of this act is to provide for a fair and equitable administration of payments in lieu of taxes. That tells me that the government is under some obligation, whether through its own actions, in doing business or in providing for an authority with the ability to business such as an airport authority or a port corporation, to make payments in lieu of taxes or to provide to the municipality or to provincial government for expenses that may occur as a result of a particular business.

I would like to address the issue that has to do with the port authorities, in particular Vancouver port and Fraser port. Both those ports are great contributors not only to the local economy of the Delta area in which part of the Vancouver port is located or of the Surrey area where the Surrey-Fraser docks are. They also have some properties in the municipality of Richmond.

It is not only that they have an impact on those municipalities, but they certainly impact on the province and the transportation routes maintained by the provincial government. Their impact extends across the country. They allow Canadian transportation facilitators, whether the Canadian National Railway, the Canadian Pacific Railway or trucking companies within Canada, to move goods from Vancouver port across the continent right down to the east coast and elsewhere into the heartland of the continent.

That movement does not come without cost. Unfortunately much of the cost of that accrues not to the federal government but to the province because it is responsible for providing highway transportation certainly to the municipalities adjacent to these ports. The cost there can be huge.

I will address the cost associated with providing a connecting route between Fraser port, whose main focus of operation is on the Fraser River in Surrey across from New Westminster and on Annasis Island, which is again in the same neighbourhood, and the port of Vancouver at Roberts Bank where a large container facility now exists.

That container facility was completed a little over two years ago when it came into operation. The result is that truck traffic to the Vancouver port has increased tremendously. It has gone from basically zero, as far as containers went, to where there are probably hundreds of truck movements a day in and out of the port.

There is also rail car activity, moving containers on to the port property and away from it. The result is a huge increase in traffic in the municipality of Delta. As well, the connection to CN rail yards at the port of Mann and the CP rail yards at the port of Coquitlam are originating points for some of the train and container traffic that moves into the port of Vancouver.

The burden in providing for the road link between these two port facilities falls directly on the municipality of Delta. The roads that are in place were roads that were not designed for that purpose. If we look at River Road in Delta, it is a local road. It was designed as a local road to provide access for the local community to move along the south shore of the Fraser River. It was not intended in any way as an interprovincial artery or an artery that would join two of the busiest ports in Canada. I believe Vancouver port is the busiest in Canada, or close to it. The Fraser port in its own right is a very busy port.

What we now have is day and night a continual line of heavy trucks moving through the area of North Delta where I live. They are moving these large containers from the Fraser port and other truck facilities throughout the lower mainland and across Canada, through North Delta to Vancouver port at Roberts Bank.

It may be difficult to imagine but I am talking about a road which is the normal width of a residential street. Day in and day out large trucks move along that street. The street is located at a height above the river. If we look at the topography of the land in North Delta, as we approach the Alex Fraser Bridge the road goes up from a point at almost sea level on the dike to about 150 feet above sea level. It is at the top of that hill that the road runs.

The problem is that the land is not exactly stable. If we talk to residents who live along that road they tell us that over the last little while since this container activity has begun at Roberts Bank they are seeing cracks in the foundations of their houses. All day long they can feel the pounding of the trucks going by. They can actually feel that in their homes. The homes, Mr. Speaker, are no farther away from the truck traffic than you are away from me, which is about 100 feet. That is how close these large trucks are travelling to the homes in that residential area.

The question is who is responsible for upgrading this arterial route through a residential neighbourhood. Should it be the municipality? The cost will be horrendous for whoever does it. To upgrade the road would require the purchase of many of the homes that line it to provide for additional width to the road bed. In several areas the ground on which the road stands is not stable enough to allow for continued use without serious upgrading. There would be a huge cost to do that.

The underlying question is would it be ethical and morally correct to upgrade the arterial traffic through this neighbourhood or would we simply ignore the residents and tell them their neighbourhood is going to have a four lane highway through it, an artery which is primarily dedicated to truck traffic plus a bit of local traffic? Do we do that? The answer many have reached is no, the current route through a residential neighbourhood is not the one.

One of the alternatives that has been proposed is to go up through a gully which is a salmon bearing stream for coho salmon and whatnot and connect with the North Delta connector, the Nordel Way. That road is an arterial road. It is a busy road already without the addition of the truck traffic. Many would suggest it is not the chosen route either.

The chosen route by many would be to construct a new road along the river bank at the base of the hill. At times the road would be mounted on pilings in the river. It would be an elevated road in the river. The question then is who will pay for it. Should the municipality accept the burden of paying for the roadway, or should it be the province, or should it be the federal government?

It all boils down to whose facility the road is accommodating. It is not accommodating the interests of the local people. Their interests are already well taken care of by the existing road network. It services that residential area.

Should it be the province? Is the province the only beneficiary of Vancouver port and Fraser port? It is not. The country as a whole benefits from the existence of these two ports. Prairie grain is shipped through there. Coal from the interior of British Columbia and elsewhere is shipped through the port at Roberts Bank. Containers travel from across Canada and containers travel into the ports and then move across Canada. They are the goods that move through the municipality.

The benefit accrues not only to the local people. Our involvement is probably less than most. The involvement here is one that benefits everybody, the local people insofar as jobs are provided, the province because of the taxes that accrue from the port, and the country as a whole because Vancouver port provides a gateway to the world for goods both exiting Canada or entering from afar. From coast to coast, we all benefit from Vancouver port. It would seem to me that if we all benefit then to a certain extent we all should pay.

The bill talks about payments in lieu of taxes. Somehow the government itself is the final arbitrator on the level of benefit that should accrue to a municipality. I think we are shortchanged. The local people are not being given the kind of access to federal money that they should have.

An outside arbiter or a neutral arbiter should look at the impact of these registered federal facilities. The arbiter should say what their impact is on local communities and what type of tax revenue should accrue to local municipalities and to provincial governments, given the impact the federal facilities have on the local people.

I do not see that happening. I think it is a weakness in the bill. I have written to the federal Minister of Transport on the issue of a connecting route between these two ports and a connecting route really between Vancouver port and the rest of North America. That traffic should not in any way shape or form be traversing a residential neighbourhood. It is dangerous and destructive to the community.

There is a danger in moving many of these goods. Certainly, local emergency officials have no idea what types of goods are being transported through that residential neighbourhood and accidents do happen. As that traffic increases, the chances of a serious accident are even more possible.

When I look at this bill, I would certainly like to see the government address the issue of giving municipal and provincial governments a better hearing, a hearing that would be more independent than the kind that has been proposed by the bill.

Too often we think of government services as benign or merely helpful to the local community. People may think of a post office in a downtown core. They may think of other government offices that do not really have an impact on the environment and may be a benefit in that they draw people to a commercial district. When I look at the bill, I think of government entities which have a huge impact on the environment and which affect the quality of life many of us enjoy. I do not see that being protected in the bill. That is a serious shortcoming.

There are a number of other issues in this bill that are worth mentioning. I will briefly mention three items which I think are worthy of note.

The first is that the minister and crown agencies maintain too much discretionary power. I addressed that issue. I underline that we certainly believe that is the case. A neutral arbitrator should be addressing these issues.

The second point is that recommendations of the dispute advisory panel are non-binding. It merely maintains the status quo and entrenches into legislation common practices that were put in place 16 years ago. The bill is not an improvement in this area. It merely confirms the status quo and does not do anything to address the problems I have mentioned.

The third item we are concerned about is that the Royal Canadian Mint, Canada Post Corporation and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation should be added to schedule IV in order that they may be eligible to make business occupancy payments in lieu of taxes. That is fairly self-explanatory. These corporations are currently excluded from coverage in schedule IV. We think they should be brought into the fold.

On those issues, we hope that the government would see fit to amend the bill to address these shortcomings. We think it is only reasonable. I know my constituents who are living along that artery or river road would appreciate it if the government would see fit to accept some responsibility for the increased traffic through a residential neighbourhood that has resulted as a consequence of the development, if I may say a very positive development, of the Vancouver Port Corporation.

[Carolyn Parrish, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Madam Speaker, I am not being facetious when I say I found the rather lengthy discussion of the road quite interesting. I come from an area where a huge facility previously owned by the federal government and now managed locally, the Pearson airport, causes the same concerns among the residents.

This is a taxation bill. The hon. member talked about environmental concerns and the impact on property values. I would very seriously like to hear what recommendations the hon. member would make strictly in the area of taxation to address his concern about that road.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that question. I think the hon. member recognizes that we share a problem, one which many of us share.

I do not have an immediate solution. We have to look at when there are government facilities, facilities licensed by or registered with the federal government such as airports and ports, there has to be some recognition that they have a huge impact, and at times a negative impact, on our communities.

Great revenues accrue from these types of facilities and we all benefit from these types of facilities. Certainly I benefit from the airport in Toronto. I live in Vancouver but I travel through there. I use it and I am a beneficiary. But in saying that, we have to recognize that it does have an impact on local people. The quality of their lives is impacted.

In the situation I described the impact has just come into play, and has magnified in the last two years by the development of the new container service at Vancouver port's Roberts Bank facility. Neighbourhoods which had experienced a fair amount of through traffic but limited truck traffic are now subject to an ongoing barrage of trucks, convoys of trucks, day in and day out, basically 24 hours a day.

Somehow or another we have to come to grips with that because this port is one which benefits everybody. It not only benefits the people who live in Delta, but the benefit is enjoyed by all Canadians. It brings great wealth into the country. We have to recognize that the lives of many people have been impacted. We have to look at ways of extracting revenue from the port to try to compensate those people whose lives have been negatively impacted by the port. It is only fair and just. I do not see it as a great imposition on the port or the government to do that; I see it as an obligation.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

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.

Organ Donation Act

[Lou Sekora, Liberal, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

moved that Bill C-227, an act to establish a National Organ Donor Registry and to co-ordinate and promote organ donation throughout Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, Bill C-227 seeks to create an act to establish a National Organ Donor Registry to promote organ donation throughout Canada. The objective of Bill C-227 is to provide the means to increase the amount of available organs in Canada for the purpose of transplantation through organ acquisition.

A national organ donor registry would allow people to register legal consent for organ donations and would subsequently lead to an increase in Canada's low rate of donations.

We must establish a system to support high levels of organ donation in Canada. We have the opportunity to store or provide a link between information on organ donors from participating provinces. Information will be maintained in an efficient form for the purposes of identifying intended or potential organ donors.

According to the report of the Standing Committee on Health released in April 1999, entitled “Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation: A Canadian Approach”, Canada is currently facing a serious situation with respect to organ and tissue donation and transplantation.

The present organ donor rate is unacceptable. Organ donation must be made an issue of national importance.

A national registry would provide an efficient means to allow available organs to be matched with waiting recipients. This co-ordinated effort would ultimately reduce the current waiting time for a match. As it now stands, one-third of individuals who wait for an organ transplant die as they wait for a matching donor.

Lives will be saved with the establishment of an organized and efficient national organ donor registry. It will be possible to co-ordinate the supply and demand of available organs.

The widening gap between the organs available and the number of Canadians in need of them highlights the void that we will continue to have without a national organ donor registry. The problem is that there is no national system to ensure that usable organs are used and matched to those in need.

The annual number of patients waiting for an organ replacement grows faster than the number of transplants being performed each year. Potential organ donors are lost because we lack a clear, organized and simple system in Canada. Laws need to follow rather than lead the issues that require a legislative response.

A national organ donor registry would provide the means to prevent the deaths of a third of all people who wait for an organ transplant now. The very success of transplants clearly depends on every effort that is made to increase the number of available donors.

The public is becoming increasingly aware of the vast potential of organ transplantation. Public awareness is the key to tackling the issue of transplant shortages in this country. The first week of April is now designated as National Organ Donor Week. Public awareness of the importance of organ donation continues as April 18 to April 25 now marks National Organ Donor Awareness Week.

It would seem only logical to have people's organ compatibility levels easily accessible in a national database so that matches could be made in seconds once the organs become available. The price of a human life is worth the time needed to organize a national co-ordinating organ donor system, as opposed to the many lives that are now lost without it.

The success rate for transplantation is worth noting. After one year, both liver and kidney transplant recipients enjoy a very high rate of survival.

The most recent figures indicate that the current rate of organ donations in this country remains at a standstill of 14.8 organs available per million, as opposed to 21 organs per million in the United States. A national organ donor registry would help reverse the critical shortage of donated organs.

Canada has one of the lowest donor rates among western industrialized countries. Organ donations need to be on the public agenda simply because the situation is at a crisis level.

A national registry would enable provinces to share information about prospective donors. The ability to provide donor data when required by a hospital is crucial to the success of any registry.

The primary purpose for the establishment of an organ donor registry is for donor identification. Donor identification is effective only if there is a system for linking the potential donor to a potential recipient. There are three different types of donors. They include the following: intended donors, potential donors and actual donors.

An intended donor is an individual who has expressed the desire or intention to become a donor upon death, or when appropriate during life.

A potential donor is an individual who has been identified within the health care facility as being appropriate for the purpose of being an organ or tissue donor.

Lastly, an actual donor is an individual from whom at least one organ or tissue has been procured, allocated and transplanted.

Potential organ donors must satisfy brain death criteria before they can be deemed suitable for donation. Brain death is the irreversible ending of all brain functions, including that of the brain stem.

According to the Canadian Medical Association, the whole brain must be dead in order for the patient's organs to be harvested. After brain death has been declared there is no hope. It is time to let go and give hope to someone else. The pronouncement of brain death is never made by a physician who has anything to do with the transplant process. Death is not prematurely announced in order for the patient to become an organ donor.

We need to find a workable plan to address the very real lack of available organs in the country. We need one central database, or linked databases, which will allow Canadians the opportunity to register their choice about organ donations in a legally enforceable manner. Lifesaving information should be available to those in the health care profession.

Securing organ donations is a community responsibility. Now is the time to rethink our approach to organ donation. Social awareness of the need to make a conscious and deliberate choice to donate one's organs at the time of death brings us to the point where we can acknowledge the importance of a national organ donor registry.

We need a national program that will co-ordinate well with participating provinces.

The British Columbia Transplant Society is a provincially funded health organization that supports the needs of transplant patients and families. The British Columbia Transplant Society directs, delivers or contracts for all organ transplants within the province and sets standards on quality.

In the spring of 1997, the British Columbia Transplant Society tested a new and significant program to help increase the effectiveness of organ donation in Canada. The program is called the organ donor registry. This provincial registry includes a computerized database that records the wishes of organ donors in B.C. Since the creation of the British Columbia Transplant Society the number of organ transplants performed annually has increased by more than 400%.

The multiple organ retrieval and exchange program of Ontario, founded by the ministry of health, was developed as the central registry of organ donors and recipients for Ontario to facilitate the equitable distribution of transplant organs in the province. Potential recipients, once registered and listed on the system, are eligible for the fast, efficient and equitable allocation of organ donors.

The Canadian organ replacement register includes data and analysis of kidney dialysis, organ donation and transplantation activities in Canada. The Canadian organ replacement register provides information on the level of activity and outcomes of dialysis in Canada.

The Canadian organ replacement register is managed by the Canadian Institute for Health Information. More Canadians are waiting for organ transplants and the numbers are rising annually, with kidneys in the greatest demand.

The best treatment replacing dialysis is a kidney transplant. The shortage of organ donations causes patients to be left on dialysis, which remains very costly.

We need to gather our resources to turn the desire to live into a realistic goal.

Because there are millions of people in Canada, the chances of finding an organ donor and recipient who are chemically compatible are significantly reasonable. However, testing for compatibility takes time. Minutes are critical when deciding where to transport the newly acquired organ.

As many as one-third of the potential donors remain unidentified or poorly managed. Another third is lost due to family or coroner refusal. The actual number of donors is only one-third of the potential.

This bill is about removing obstacles and creating a venue for change. Donors ensure a future for those in need of transplantation by providing the option for a longer life. There is an increasing demand for organ transplantation as the medical procedure maintains a high level of success. This demand has not been met due to the shortage of available organs.

The critical shortage of organs and tissues remains the most important challenge for health care professionals. The presence of a national organ and tissue sharing system would help to ensure safe, equitable and efficient transplantation in Canada.

We can see the positive effects of successful organ transplantation in our everyday lives.

The Canadian Transplant Games Association is a non-profit organization of transplant athletes and others committed to positively influencing public attitudes toward organ donation and motivating transplant recipients to maintain a healthy lifestyle by holding athletic events. Public awareness and community involvement can combine to offer help to needy recipients.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to compliment the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam for bringing this bill to the House. As he mentioned, it is a very important issue and one of the silent tragedies that has been occurring in our country for quite a long time. This problem existed at the time I was training to be a physician in the 1980s.

For a very long time we have had constructive solutions to deal with the issue of organ donation. Yet, while there has been widespread agreement on solutions, there has been a lack of action. We have seen the cycle go round and round. Solutions are proffered, agreements are made and yet we fall back to square one with nothing being done. No one takes the good ideas and puts them into action. That is why I welcome the member's bill. I hope it will be the catalyst that will finally push the minister and the government to act on the plethora of good solutions they have in their laps today.

As a nation we have one of the worst organ donor rates in the entire developed world. In fact, it is only about 12.1 per million. To put that into context, in the best circumstances there are about 36 per million in parts of the U.S. and Spain.

I would attribute our inaction on this issue to downright neglect. It is not an academic exercise. Of the more than 3,000 people who today sit on waiting lists, 150 or more of them will die needlessly. If there were a bus accident, a train crash or a plane crash and 150 people died, a national inquiry or a royal commission would be held immediately. In no short order solutions would be put forth and implemented. But because this issue is like a slow bleed which kills people over time it tends to be swept under the carpet.

For those people who are waiting for organs, for their families and loved ones who are watching them suffer, it is a painful existence. It is all the more painful because something could be done about it.

Something has been done about it.

As the member knows, in 1997 a motion was passed in the House of Commons detailing five points that would enable us to revamp the organ donor system in the country. It was supported by all members of the House and passed unanimously. It gave the minister a succinct plan of action which he could have implemented in 1997 and it would have had widespread acceptance.

Prior to that time the federal government and the provinces got together and agreed on a 13 point plan to revamp the organ donor system in our country. All provinces, including the province of Quebec, agreed to the national plan. The provinces were working with the federal government to do something for the public good. We were working as one.

Those solutions were again put on the back burner. In 1997, when I inquired about what was happening to these good solutions, I found that people were just sitting on their hands and nothing was happening while Canadians suffered and died.

Again I worked with the Minister of Health and, to his credit, he showed a great deal of interest in the issue. Through motions and procedures in the Standing Committee on Health, I and the Minister of Health asked the committee to study it. The committee worked together beautifully and heard fantastic testimony from people around the country and around the world.

Within the context of the testimony was a series of solutions and ideas that would give Canada the best organ donor system in the entire world in my view. In spite of the fact that we worked very well together, the final majority report, which had government stamped right on it, was a piece of pabulum. It was a piece of bureaucrat-speak. It did not do justice to the solutions that were put forth at that committee for this year, nor did it do justice to the well-meaning people who came before the committee.

Unfortunately, all of us in the opposition put forth minority reports, not because we wanted to but because the government majority report was so lacking in direction, in specifics and in a plan of action that all of us felt compelled to put forth a plan of action.

The following is a plan of action that incorporates what the good member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam has put forth. It involves the following points.

First, we should have a national organ donor registry that involves both potential organs and potential donors, which in and of itself will not solve the problems. We need something else. We need a chance to be organ donors.

Second, on every patient's chart across the country, we should have a form asking people to be organ donors. When people go to their family doctor, the doctor will ask whether they want to be organ donors. If they agree to be donors, the doctor will give them a form and they can ask questions.

The form must have two things: first, a request to be a donor, and second, but equally important, a question asking if they have communicated their wishes to a loved one. The reason for this is very important. If people do not communicate their wishes to their loved ones about whether or not they want to be a donor, then their wishes will be respected only half the time.

In the event of the untimely death of a person who chooses to be a donor, half the time the family will override the wishes of their loved one. However, if people tell their families what they want to do regardless of their feelings, 96% of the time they will honour their loved one's wish to give the gift of life.

Third, we need organ donor co-ordinators in every hospital in the country. It can be an existing staff person with extra training who can seek permission for organ extraction from family members in times of bereavement.

Fourth, when a hospital is involved in procuring organs from a person who has died, it should receive money for the costs incurred in extracting the organs from that person. It is costly because it involves time in the intensive care unit and it involves personnel.

If those four points are followed, we will have the best organ donor system in the country. I plead with the Minister of Health not to wait any longer. It took the Minister of Health months to respond to the health care committee, and during the course of that month, in October, roughly 66 people died in the country while waiting for the minister to respond. That is not necessary.

On cold, hard, economic grounds, if we remove the obvious humanitarian reasons for pursuing this course, the cost savings to the health care system are quite extensive. For example, it costs $50,000 to $60,000 per year for somebody to be on dialysis. It costs about that much to have a kidney transplant. Over the course of five years, the health care system would save $200,000 on every patient it dialyzed.

We must look into the future, into the crystal ball as we all get older. As the incidence of diabetes increases in certain populations and in the population as a whole, the demands on dialysis systems will increase dramatically. We must act now in a proactive way to give these people on dialysis the kidneys they need in order to prevent further tragedies.

It is not that we are going to somehow procure kidneys from people who are not dead. The people we get organs from are dead. For every organ donor who dies, five lives are saved. I compliment the families of the people who, through their untimely deaths, have made the ultimate sacrifice. Through their extraordinary generosity, they have given of themselves to give other people a new lease on life.

I make a plea to the public: If you want to be an organ donor, please sign your card and communicate your wishes to your loved ones.

I plead with the Minister of Health to support this bill, to support the motion I put forth which passed in this House, to support the work the committee did and to support the opposition members' solutions. Within that bundle of solutions are the best solutions to save Canadian lives. We need it and we need it now for the failure to act will only cost more people's lives.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating the hon. member on his bill. We are pleased to support the principle. Even if it will not be votable, we believe it is an excellent opportunity for parliamentarians to reflect on and support such a bill.

Before getting to the main thrust of the subject, I will take the liberty of being out of order for 30 seconds in order to keep a promise I have made relating to the 30th birthday of my colleague from Longueuil. On behalf of her husband Stéphane and her son Étienne, I wish her happy birthday from us all, for everyone knows that turning 30 is an important milestone in life. I am sure my colleagues join me in these wishes.

As for the bill, I repeat that we are pleased to support the principle, and I believe that there are a number of things that have to be said. First of all, unlike blood donations, organ donations are unfortunately not much of a part of Canadian culture.

Our Reform Party colleague reminded us earlier of the statistics: 12 per million, as compared to 36 per million in the United States. We realize that campaigns are necessary in order to raise awareness, and this is a collective responsibility.

As parliamentarians, it is our duty to show the way, to say that there are certain things that can be done. The first thing to do is to remind ourselves and our acquaintances to become potential donors. Indeed, we can only become actual donors by first being potential donors.

We support any measure to help co-ordinate such an initiative. Of course, such measures cannot be coercive, cannot be binding on the provinces. I think that the wording of the hon. member's bill is appropriate. Clause 6 provides that the registrar shall endeavour to ensure that the provinces participate in a number of co-ordinating measures. This takes us to the very unfair and incongruous situation of each of Quebec's regions.

Considering that a country as large as Canada—which, as we all know, includes two nations—only has 28 hospitals that do full grafts and organ or tissue transplants, it is appropriate to take a closer look at the services being provided.

The two provinces that provide full organ or tissue transplants are of course Quebec and Ontario. There are 11 institutions in Quebec and 8 in Ontario that provide such services.

Nova Scotia only has two such institutions, and that province serves all of Atlantic Canada. Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick do not have any hospitals that do organ or tissue transplants. In Manitoba, there is only one hospital providing that service, and the same goes for Saskatchewan. In the case of Alberta and British Columbia, there are three such institutions.

These services are still very limited and there is a need for information. We must urge stakeholders in the health care sector to do their share, because this is a responsibility that falls primarily to doctors.

It would be very interesting if doctors could find some delicate way—because a hospital setting is not always conducive to this kind of thinking—to ensure that potential donors are not lost.

I think it would be a good thing if doctors were encouraged to consider this possibility with patients who, of course, are often terminal, who have arrived, or are arriving at the final stage of their life. It is very important that we be able to impress on people how compassionate and generous an act this is, and how society as a whole will be the better for it. The extension of life and the improvement of individuals' quality of life lie behind the reality of organ donation, but there is also an economic reality. I think one of our colleagues made this point earlier.

In the case of kidney disease, for instance, it would be much more economical for society to encourage organ donation than to continue to do dialysis, with all the equipment that entails. It has often been estimated that the cost could be as much as five times higher. In other words, it costs society five times as much to continue with and promote dialysis as it does to promote organ donation. That is the point we are making.

I do not wish to take up more time than necessary, but I commend the hon. member's sensitivity in introducing his bill. Let us hope that, even if it is not votable, the government will act very quickly on the parliamentary committee's report. I want those who are listening to us—I realize that we are not normally allowed to use documents, but I am counting on the full co-operation of the House in this regard—to know that a parliamentary committee addressed this issue and tabled its report in April 1999.

This report was prepared by parliamentarians, with one member from each party represented in the House working on it. I would say that, on the substance, the committee was unanimous. There were dissenting reports with regard to the form because some thought the proposed measures did not go far enough, but everyone agreed on the principle of establishing a national registry and co-ordinating efforts to ensure that, wherever we live, be it Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Quebec, Ontario or the Maritimes, someone is keeping track of how many organs are available for those who need them, and there is a need to quickly identify potential donors so that they are not lost.

This report, which was tabled in April 1999 as I indicated earlier, called on the government to take prompt measures and contained about 20 recommendations. Again, I believe there was a consensus on the principle.

Therefore, we support the bill introduced by our colleague and commend him for his initiative. I hope the government will follow this bill up with implementation measures.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate and to join with others in the House who have indicated their support for Bill C-227.

I too want to congratulate the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam for bringing this matter before the House.

At the very outset I want to indicate our strong support for this bill. Why do I support the bill? Why do my colleagues in the New Democratic Party support the bill? Why do all members in the opposition parties support the bill? It calls for something that was recommended to the member's government many months ago. It was the logical step required by the government to deal with a very critical situation.

One wonders, if this bill had been votable, where the Liberal members would have stood. Would they support this bill given the past record, the agony, the kind of deliberations and intensive study all of us have been through over the last six months to a year?

This bill calls for a national organ donor registry. It is something that was recommended by many witnesses before the health committee, which went through six months of deliberations. That idea was supported by every opposition party in the House yet it was vetoed, wiped out, stamped out by the Liberal majority on the health committee. The question we all have today is why? Can the member who has brought forward this bill not make a difference in terms of his own caucus and get through to the Minister of Health to put this item on the agenda today? Why do we have to continually wait and debate something on which there is a clear consensus and an absolute need?

Madam Speaker, you will sense the frustration of opposition members around this bill. It is not because we do not support the idea. It is because we know that this idea could have been implemented at least six months ago when the Standing Committee on Health completed its deliberations following six months of studying the matter. We express frustration today because there are models the government could have used to implement such a strategy which are already in the works in the country.

The member referred to the B.C. NDP government's registry. Other governments are looking at this as a model. The Yukon government feels very strongly about adopting something similar. I am sure provincial and territorial governments right across the country would only be too pleased to join in the creation of such a registry, except that we do not have a federal government that is prepared to show some leadership, put some money on the table, show some political will and get this thing moving.

My colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca also deserves some credit for advancing the public and political agenda on this matter. His private member's motion got the ball rolling. It could have been acted on very quickly, but the Liberal government decided it needed to keep the health committee busy reviewing the same studies that have made the same recommendations for the last number of years.

None of us regret the time we spent talking to witnesses and discussing the important issues around organ donation and transplantation. However, we all thought that when that process was over we would at least march forward with a clear plan of action. Fundamental to that plan of action was a national donor registry.

I wanted to mention the work of the Reform Party's health critic in this area. Again I express regrets over the inaction of the federal government on this very important matter.

We have heard the stats over and over again. Canada has one of the lowest donor rates in the western industrial world. Our rate of donation is about 14.5 donors per million.

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

It is 12.1.