Debates of Feb. 4th, 1999

Privilege

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Speaker]

There are a number of things to be considered in this point. I have asked, when possible, that it is always better to make announcements in the House rather than outside. In this case, if I heard the member correctly, he mentioned this statement was released on January 22. The House was not sitting at that time.

Matters of privilege should be raised as soon as possible. I urge all hon. members to do that, especially that we have been sitting for four days and this is the first time it has come up.

He raises another point which does interest the Chair and I believe will interest the House. I would like the hon. member to submit to the table the document he has with regard to this issue. I would like to hold a decision on my part in abeyance. I would like to satisfy myself with some of the information referred to in the document and the substance of what is in those speeches. I will come back to the House if necessary.

Points Of Order

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, during question period, several times on questioning the Minister of National Defence the issue of documentation from the Food and Drug Administration arose.

I offer to supply the documentation that shows that the date was changed on Lot No. FAV-020. Also there is no documentation of reconciliation before or after.

[The Speaker]

Does the hon. member have the consent of the House to table the documents?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

The Late James Baskin

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues in the Progressive Conservation caucus I rise to mark the life of James Baskin who died on January 8.

Mr. Baskin represented the Ontario constituency of Renfrew South from 1957 to 1963. A part of the great Diefenbaker sweep, Mr. Baskin was a consummate representative of his electorate. His contemporaries tell us that his great interest was representing the people of Renfrew South. He was known as a great constituency man.

In later life he pursued his lifelong equestrian interests. James Baskin was largely responsible for the building of the Rideau Carleton Raceway.

To his surviving family we offer our sympathy and our thanks for helping him to serve the people of Canada in the House of Commons.

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my Liberal colleagues it is my distinct honour to pay tribute to a lifelong friend of not only me but my father, a political mentor and a simply marvellous human being.

The late James W. Baskin, Jim, was a hale and hearty horseman, energetic entrepreneur and a passionate politician.

Although he was equally proficient in those three professions, I believe I named them in his order of personal preference.

Jim knew that sooner or later the race of time, with sickle and tireless stride, Wins every race at last, And pass them all on the home stretch No matter how game or how fast; The eyes would grow dim, the wrinkles creep Over the face that we seem to know, Time has been lashing us year by year And making us heavily blow. But furrows and seems and lines of care With a twinge in the knees and back, Just whispers it low to us, You're getting too old for the track; “Age is nothing—it's the bloodlines that tell” J.W. Baskin, the veteran said, And he drove Cimarron and won the race. Now he sits on his sulky, dead. A wonderful race is this race for life, Some seem to be stayers and last, While others break down at the head of the stretch By rushing the quarters too fast: Go steady my friend, go steady, And the record you still may lower, But let it be said that you were fair and square When your race for life is over.

Whether on the race track, in his business as a lumberman and hotelier, or here in his beloved House of Commons, Jim Baskin was a true valley lad, a fairminded individual with an unimpeachable record of service to his fellow man.

He served his cherished constituency of Renfrew South from 1957 to 1963 with diligence, determination and distinction, all cornerstones of the political philosophy of Jim Baskin.

Life was no brief candle for Jim Baskin. He looked upon it as a sort of splendid torch that he got hold of for a moment and wanted to make it burn as brightly as possible before passing it on to the next generation. And that he did.

He was a colourful, charismatic member of parliament who always took a leadership role. He never, ever abdicated his responsibilities and duties as a parliamentarian.

He was a shining, sterling example of excellence who made each and every one of us look good. To his family I say a most heartfelt and sincere thank you for having given us the absolute privilege of having Jim Baskin serve as a federal member of parliament. He was a winner in politics. He was a winner in business and he was a winner on the race track.

I would not hesitate to wager that somewhere out there in the vast field of life father time will make one last call of the homestretch drive to the wire by saying “And charging to the front of the field in a blaze of glory is James W. Baskin who once again will grace the winner's circle”.

Goodbye my friend, Jim. It has been a pleasure knowing you. You have done a great job. No one could have done better. As a matter of fact, you were a true champion in every sense of the word.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the Reform Party. It is with respect that I rise to pay tribute to the hon. James Baskin, former member of parliament for Renfrew South, who died on January 8.

Although I did not personally know Mr. Baskin, it is my understanding that he was a man of great compassion, energy and entrepreneurial spirit.

Indeed in his 79 years he accomplished a great deal. In politics he represented his constituents from 1957 to 1963, participating in some of the most interesting political times in Canada.

Constituents, I understand, were his great political joy and one might have assumed as much from a man who had his roots as deeply entrenched in the constituency as he did.

As he represented a largely rural riding, he spoke passionately on behalf of farmers and took pride in what he stated. These are the words used in the House. He took pride in speaking, talking the way most farmers like to hear a man talk, soundly and without resorting to emotional appeal, relying on what they call common sense.

Outside parliament Mr. Baskin excelled as a businessman. He was a lumberman and a hotelier, but it was his passion for horses that saw one of his hardest fought but greatest business successes come to life. Baskin was largely responsible for building the Rideau Carleton Raceway which his friends say stands today as a monument to him.

James Baskin was without doubt a man who touched many lives. He will be missed and leaves behind a space which cannot be easily filled. But in death, as in life, it is in his character that his legacy will be left.

On behalf the Reform Party I extend our deepest condolences to his family, his friends and the people of Ottawa-Carleton.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to pay tribute to Mr. James Baskin, a former member of the House, who died on January 8 at the age of 79. He sat in the House from 1957 to 1963.

He was seen as a populist who defended the interests of his community. Although he held office for only seven years, Mr. Baskin had to face the constituents of Renfrew-South on three occasions and served under Progressive Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbaker in two minority governments.

He was first elected in 1957 and re-elected in 1958 in the Progressive Conservative landslide that sent John Diefenbaker and his team back to power with a strong majority. He was again elected in 1962, only to lose his seat when Lester B. Pearson won the 1963 election.

This businessman turned politician, who came from a small town near Peterborough, was an energetic politician close to the people and attuned to his constituents' needs. Mr. Baskin's second passion in life, after politics, was horses. He was one of those responsible for the construction of the Rideau Carleton Raceway here in Ottawa. That was not all this former Progressive Conservative member did. He also bought the Carling Avenue Bar, which became a watering hole for regional politicians. He ran this hotel until it was torn down in 1986. The site is now occupied by the Corel Centre, the new arena built for the NHL's Ottawa Senators.

After his hotel experience in Ottawa, this enterprising gentleman invested in another hotel, this time in Daytona Beach, Florida. He loved the public as much as he loved horses and managed to benefit both.

On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois I would like to extend my deepest condolences to his family and friends.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and my colleagues in the NDP I would like to join with others who have spoken in tribute to the late Mr. James Baskin, a former member of this House, who served from 1957 to 1963 and certainly had the privilege of one who was involved in politics and service in this House in a very interesting time.

I notice from what I have been able to read about Mr. Baskin since his death that he was the kind of person I would like to have known. I did not know him and very few of us here would know him, given that it was so long ago that he served in this place.

Obviously people who did not know him as colleagues in the House of Commons but who come from the area he lived and worked in as a member of parliament and as a businessman think very highly of him. I certainly regret that I did not have the privilege of knowing him.

We pay tribute to his career in the House and to the quality of his life and the obvious good impression he made on many people. We join with others in extending our sincere condolences to his family.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and the amendment.

Supply

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

When we broke for question period there were five minutes remaining for the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca on questions and comments.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the motion we have introduced today is still timely, even if we have just learned that the government is ready to spend money—we still do not know the exact amount—on the provinces' health care systems through transfer payments.

I know from a reliable source that the financing could reach $2.5 billion.

The motion we introduced asked for the unconditional restoration of transfer payments to the 1993-94 level when the Liberal government was elected.

We all know that, in 1993-94, transfer payments amounted to $18.8 billion. Those payments were brought back to $11 billion, following enormous pressure from opposition parties and from all stakeholders, even the National Forum on Health. The government allegedly did us a favour by reinvesting money in the administration of the provinces' health care systems, but this is no favour. Initially, the government was supposed to cut $49 billion over the next five years, but that amount was reduced to $42 billion. The federal government has done us no favour.

The government now tells us that it will spend $2.5 billion. In Quebec's case, this means that funding will be cut by $1 billion a year—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but does he have a question for the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca?

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, do I not have a choice between asking a question and making a comment?

I am sorry but I only remember the gist of the hon. member's speech. That is why I wanted to make a comment.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Very well, but the member's time is over. The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca may give a short response.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois.

We have an enormous opportunity to take a leadership role in something that has never been done before, something that the Minister of Human Resources Development, something that the Minister of Health and the Minister of Justice can participate in.

If these ministers were to get their colleagues in the provincial government to come together at one point to deal with the precursors affecting the health care of Canadians, the work that has been done by members across the way such as the member from Moncton who played a leadership role would address the precursors of conflict by dealing with children in the first eight years of life.

We can use the available data in a utilized program based on previous experience around the world that has demonstrated profound impacts upon poverty, upon teen pregnancies, upon keeping kids in school longer, and upon the health and welfare of children. It will only happen if the federal government takes a leadership role. It will only happen if the federal ministers call their provincial counterparts together anywhere in the country to form an integrated approach.

This would have the most profound cost saving and humanitarian effect on children based on facts and on existing programs and would save the lives of a lot of people. It is rooted in preventing these problems rather than managing them.

Many of my colleagues and I would be very happy to work with members on the other side to make this a reality. The head start program exemplifies a program which can and should be employed across the country using existing resources.

[Claudette Bradshaw, Liberal, Moncton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Winnipeg South.

I am very pleased to take part in today's debate. This dialogue is very timely. The member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie gave his views on the health care debate.

In line with the traditional thinking of his party, he is asking our government to pretend it has no role to play in the health care field. He himself has decided that the federal government could not contribute to improving the health of Canadians in any way other than simply signing cheques. He is mistaken. The fact is, today the Prime Minister is meeting with his provincial and territorial counterparts to look at the social union issue. Indeed reality is quite different from what the member perceives it to be.

Governments know Canadians expect their elected representatives to co-operate. They expect them to present a common front on issues related to the health and the social well-being of Canadians. Today the first ministers' concern is to find the best way to translate their common commitment into action. If there is a single issue that demands a common commitment, it is indeed health care.

Contrary to the figments of the Bloc Quebecois' imagination, in the real world, federal, provincial and territorial governments carry on their respective roles in health care while working together to deal with issues demanding co-ordination and leadership at the national level.

To make it easier for my colleagues in the opposition to understand the situation, I should probably name some concrete measures in the health care field and remind them of intergovernmental co-operation in this area. As we all know, the provinces and territories are responsible for providing day to day health care to Canadians.

This level of government plans its own health care delivery and decides, usually in co-operation with physicians, which services and procedures will be covered by provincial health insurance plan. It sets its priorities, draws up its budgets and negotiates on a wide range of issues with hospitals, physicians, nurses and other stakeholders.

What role is left for the federal government? We all know the position of the Bloc Quebecois, but let us take a look at reality. The federal government has very clear responsibilities in the area of health. And I am not talking about interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction that is recent or that is forthcoming. I am talking about responsibilities that go back to Confederation and that are enshrined in our Constitution.

Let us take health programs for First Nations and for the Inuit for example. The federal government has a clear responsibility to provide health services to the status Indians who live on reserves and to the Inuit. It provides health products and services to those groups and to other eligible individuals. Is that done entirely outside the provincial framework that provides health services to the rest of the population? Of course not.

Once again, the federal government works closely with its provincial and territorial partners. Programs and services are integrated as much as possible to ensure the greatest effectiveness. Effectiveness both at the health outcome and the use of health care resources depends on a knowledge base that is constantly being renewed.

Let us look at the reality of the federal role in health research. That reality is one of a very clear acceptance of the respective roles of both orders of government and a very long history of co-operation.

One of the most soundly conceived provincial research programs in the country is the Fonds de la recherche en santé du Québec. It was designed from the ground up to complement the Medical Research Council of Canada and Health Canada's national health research and development program.

Quebec's program focuses its investment on the development of competitive expertise enabling Quebec researchers to compete successfully for federal research grants. It works and it works to everyone's advantage.

Another example is the needs of children from low income families. The community action program for children and the Canada prenatal nutrition program actively support local initiatives. These initiatives benefit parents, young children and pregnant women who could give birth to underweight babies. Are these examples of federal interference, as the Bloc thinks they are? Of course not.

These initiatives provide financial assistance for community programs and for partnerships with provinces, territories and other interested groups. They are the concrete manifestations of the type of co-operation Canadians expect from their governments.

Since 1957, the federal government has provided funds to the provinces and territories to support health insurance, through a variety of mechanisms over the years.

Today, as we know, the mechanism is the Canada health and social transfer. Contrary to what the Bloc thinks, however, this transfer is not just a cheque sent from Ottawa to the provincial capitals. These funds continue to be governed by the Canada Health Act. Underlying them are a broad range of principles which protect the rights of Canadians as far as health care is concerned.

I would like to remind all hon. members that parliament passed the Canada Health Act in 1984, with the support of all political parties. The principles listed in this act were supported by all parties.

The first principle is accessibility. Canadians can count on reasonable access to medically required care and services.

The second is comprehensiveness. Canadians are entitled to payment of all medically required services provided by physicians and hospitals.

The third principle is universality. All inhabitants of a province or territory are entitled to services, regardless of external factors.

The fourth principle is portability. Canadians are entitled to health care regardless of where in Canada they happened to be when they become ill.

Finally, the fifth principle is public administration, which ensures that only public bodies may administer our health insurance program within a not-for-profit context.

The Canada Health Act has laid down the basic rules for our health insurance program, but we must not be so naive as to believe that harmonization means that there is a single highly rigid system administered by the federal government. The act provides the provinces and territories with great flexibility. It is not a straitjacket.

It says that a province or territory wishing assistance from the federal government must comply with the five principles in the system it chooses. However, the provinces are free to decide how they will provide health care to their citizens.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague, and one would think that everything in the area of health care has been fine in Canada for the past five years. Cuts of $6 billion and more have been made annually and hospitals are closed. The sick are waiting everywhere in Canada, not just in Quebec, and things are very difficult. Nurses are exhausted, and yet the member says things are fine.

I am sorry, but in Quebec, as elsewhere, we are living a drama, if not a tragedy. The federal government's cuts were unreasonable.

Today, the 10 provinces have just signed an agreement, and the Prime Minister is puffing out his chest and saying “We are generous”. Busting one's britches is not generosity, or recognition, it is simply indecency.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Does that hurt you?

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Yes it does, and it hurts the nurses especially. It hurts my fellow citizens who are sick and have to wait because of government cuts.

Today, all the members on the other side were busy congratulating themselves, including the members from Quebec. A year or two ago, they closed their eyes. I was ready to vote zero in my riding. There are other things besides a zero deficit. We should manage a vote for zero in Canada, but we would not have the courage to hold it. My colleagues on the other side would not have the courage to support me on that. Given that there are 1.5 million children not properly fed and there are children in my riding who go without supper, that hurts.

I would ask the minister if she has some compassion in the area of health, and for children who do not get enough to eat.

[Claudette Bradshaw, Liberal, Moncton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with the health issue and with child poverty as well. I joined the Liberal Party because I knew that, as a government, having put its fiscal house in order by eliminating the $43 billion deficit, it would immediately start investing in health.

Now, the second budget to be brought down by this federal government after its fiscal house has been put in order will be a health budget. I am proud to be on the Liberal team. We hear our colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois talk about unemployment. We will be dealing with health, and the federal government will be looking after the needs of Canadians in this area.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important day for Canada as a result of the agreements that were reached a couple of hours ago and on which I will be providing a bit of detail.

The motion put forward by the opposition today reads:

That this House urges the government to respect provincial jurisdiction over health care management, to increase transfers to the provinces for health care unconditionally, and to avoid using budget surpluses to encroach upon the health care field.

Canadians have had enough. They have had quite enough finger-pointing, fed-bashing and arguing about CHST and block funding. Canadians care about their health care system. Canadians care about a sustainable, secure, quality health care system to meet the needs of our families.

The Constitution of our country prescribes that the primary responsibility for the delivery of health care is that of the provinces and the territories. That is not in dispute. They have to plan, manage and administer health care. The federal government by law is responsible for the promotion and preservation of the health care of all Canadians and for setting national policies and standards. The federal government by the Constitution and by our laws cannot interfere with provincial responsibilities under the Constitution.

Despite all the rhetoric Canadians have had enough. Our laws are clear. The division of responsibilities is clear and indeed there are some guidelines. It is not just one or another level of government that is a player in health care. The federal, provincial and territorial governments have certain responsibilities to the extent that some overlap.

Back in 1984 when we had some difficulties in the country with regard to user fees and extra billing it was necessary for us to address them. They were causing some concern about whether or not our not for profit, accessible, portable, universal, comprehensive health care system was suddenly being dismantled and becoming a two tier health care system where those who had money were able to get the services they wanted and needed at the expense of pushing back others and taking away resources available to Canadians at large.

Then the Canada Health Act came in and the federal government has responsibility to enforce national standards through the Canada Health Act. There are five national standards: reasonable access to all medically necessary services, a comprehensive health care system, universality for all provincial residents, portability throughout Canada, and publicly administered on a not for profit basis.

Canadians value our health care system because not only is it an international model but it has worked for Canadians. It has worked for us because it provides all Canadians with the security of a quality health care system. We want to maintain that health care system for other reasons as well.

Most Canadians will say that the health care system is one of the most powerful unifying factors in our country. It is our common bond of association. It is what provides us with the security of knowing it is there for all Canadians regardless of their means, that health care is there not because one has money but because one is sick and needs health care.

These important principles have been reaffirmed. Today we have seen an extraordinary accomplishment in terms of federal, provincial and territorial co-operation and partnership. We have decided today to stop the bickering. All 10 provinces and territories are signatories including Quebec. The Premier of Quebec signed this health agreement because it is important for Canada.

It is a very powerful message to Canadians knowing that there is unanimity among the provinces, territories and the federal government. They have reached an accord that will ensure Canadians will not continue to hear the rhetoric and see the finger pointing of the past. They will hear about the co-operative plans in terms of how all levels will work together to continue to support our health care system.

I have just received the framework of these talks. One of the most important elements is the dispute avoidance and resolution provision. This is the crux of the issue. Earlier today when working on my speech I had ample evidence to show finger-pointing and arguments based on insufficient or incorrect information. These are the kinds of things that were driving Canadians to be frustrated by what was going on.

I will not raise those arguments. It is time to put them away. It is time to stop talking about federal-provincial bickering. It is time to start talking about the important things in Canada, the important things in our health care system like prenatal nutrition; the problem of FAS, fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effects; early childhood development issues; the aged; and the people with diseases and medically necessary illnesses that we have to address. Canadians should have the comfort level that these issues will be addressed.

In my remaining time I will review a few of the elements of the dispute avoidance and resolution provisions of the historic agreement that was reached today. I believe it should give Canadians the assurance that we will never go back to bickering about who is responsible. There will be an accountability mechanism.

The governments are now committed to working collaboratively to avoid and resolve intergovernmental disputes respecting existing legislative provisions and mechanisms to avoid and resolve disputes. Their mechanism will be simple, timely, efficient, effective and transparent. It will allow flexibility for the governments to resolve disputes in a non-adversarial way, which is important to Canadians.

The governments are committed to working together and avoiding disputes through information sharing, joint planning, collaboration, advance notice, early consultation and flexibility in implementation. There will be sectoral negotiations to resolve disputes based on fact finding. It will be a public fact finding issue.

If issues should arise where there is some question on whether or not funding was applied in the areas agreed or whether the parties did what they were to do, there will be a public fact finding process to ensure that whatever occurred will be known by all parties. That is very important. It will ensure and put the onus on all parties to do their share because it will be a public accountability process for all Canadians.

The debate we are having today is important but not in terms of federal-provincial bickering. Today we should celebrate the fact that Canadians can rest assured that moneys will be made available to protect Canada's health care system from coast to coast to coast.

We congratulate the Minister of Health, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for their work on behalf of the federal government to achieve this health accord and the social union contract which was settled today. We thank them not only on behalf of the members of this place but appropriately on behalf of all Canadians.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we on this side have the solution to all the disputes and to everything that is going on with the federal government, and that is sovereignty for Quebec.

Let us have a sovereign Quebec, with full powers in health, education, welfare and all the problems will be resolved.

When I see my colleague opposite boasting about this agreement today, when we are only getting what was ours to begin with, this is not a gift. Since 1993, we have sustained massive cuts. This government has yielded to pressure from the public and all the provinces. At least it has had the courage to put a little money back into health care.

With respect to the social union, I would like to ask the hon. member to pledge that his government will never interfere in health, education and social programs again. The reason for this request is that Quebec could not be a part of this social union because the document put forward by the Prime Minister of Canada was not clear.