Debates of March 3rd, 1999

Division No. 326

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the people of the Halifax regional municipality and all Nova Scotians deserve to know what plans are in the works for the Shearwater Canadian forces base.

I am becoming increasingly concerned about the past operations of Shearwater Development Corporation Limited and am equally concerned about what the future holds. Underscoring both these issues is a sense that this Liberal government is not willing to be entirely open with the people who will be affected by whatever decisions are made.

Shearwater Development Corporation Limited was created in response to the 1994 federal budget when it became clear that operations at Shearwater would be reduced. Now we have Frontec Corporation suing Shearwater for over $663,000 for services and products.

Exactly what did Shearwater Development Corporation do for the past half decade and, in particular, what has happened to the $2.6 billion in taxpayer money invested in the Shearwater Development Corporation?

The people of the Halifax-Dartmouth area deserve full and fair accounting of just what this corporation did over the past five years and how their money was spent. How many jobs were created? What long term projects were crafted and developed?

The people of the Halifax regional municipality also deserve to know what the long range plans for Shearwater are. Will the military keep the shoreline property? How many jobs will be lost? What is the long term plan and use of both the base and the valuable lands on which it rests?

In response to my question in the House on November 18, 1998, the Minister of National Defence stated that the federal government would bring about an outcome where the lands would be used for the benefit of the people of the province and to create economic development opportunities so that jobs can be created. That is what the minister said in the House.

Will the people of the region have a say or will this just be one more deal made between the federal and provincial Liberals, behind closed doors, without the full and constructive input of the people whose lives will affected by the decisions made?

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, our government remains committed to making the most of the surplus property and the associated potential economic benefits at Shearwater Canadian forces base. The transfer of the surplus property has begun.

Since reducing its activities on the airfield, the department has done its best to maintain the property's viability, pending an official transfer.

As a local development agency, Shearwater Development Corporation has had some successes, including the Fisherman's Cove project.

Shearwater Development Corporation is no longer in the picture, but the tenants, which are still operating commercially on the property, are being accommodated to the extent possible by the base commander.

The Province of Nova Scotia is interested in acquiring the surplus property.

The Province of Nova Scotia and Public Works and Government Services Canada, representing the Department of National Defence, are now negotiating the transfer of the surplus property.

At the request of the Nova Scotia government, negotiations are taking place behind closed doors. Information on the transaction will, however, be released when an agreement has been signed.

The economic impact of the Shearwater transfer has always been the prime concern of national defence. As the Minister of National Defence previously stated in the House, our main objective with these negotiations is to use lands that are no longer required by the department for the benefit of the people of that province and that community and to create economic development opportunities so that jobs can be created there.

It is important to remember that the Canadian forces still have a strong operational requirement for the land we are retaining. Moreover, there are some 1,000 military and civilian personnel who operate out of the site and the resulting economic benefits cannot be overlooked.

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

Mr. Speaker, on February 8, I raised in the House some critical health care situations. I asked the Minister of Health to inform Canadians how he was prepared to address the growing crisis in our health care system.

I raised the issue of a Windsor individual who was asked to leave the hospital after tonsil surgery, bleeding and vomiting. He wanted to know why he had to be discharged that first day. I asked the minister why cancer patients in Ontario were being shipped to the United States for treatment. At that time the Minister of Health suggested that these were provincial issues and that he could not interfere with those decisions. In fact, he abdicated full responsibility for those critical situations. That was before the budget. That was on February 8.

The question for us all today, especially since the government has just approved its so-called health care budget, is has the situation changed at all. Will people facing these horrific situations be any better off? It would seem to me that the answer to all these questions is essentially no.

Since the government took office in 1993 it slashed and froze money for health care. Every day now we see the results of those health care cutbacks. Emergency room line-ups still exist today. We see pressure and stress on our nurses who are overworked and overburdened.

We see delayed surgical procedures and we see growing privatization of medical services. Will the health budget undo the damage? It does not appear so.

The question for us all today is what steps will this government now take to ensure that all Canadians regardless of where they live are able to enjoy quality of health services.

In that question, the minister also suggested that the solution was not with the Reform Party which is promoting a two tier privatized health care system. On that point I will agree, having just a few weeks ago been in Windsor, Ontario where the Reform candidate actually stood up in a public debate and said we must end the public monopoly on health care. That says it all.

A couple of weeks ago at the united alternative conference, Reformers refused to allow for a resolution that would ensure national standards and raise the desire to allow provinces to implement user fees.

We know the solution is not with Reform's Americanized version of health care. I ask the parliamentary secretary today how they intend to pursue ending privatization of our health care and pursue their ideas for a national home care plan and a national drug plan.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, this government stands committed to the principles of the Canada Health Act, as I have stated on numerous occasions.

We believe that access to necessary services should be based on health need and not on one's ability to pay. There is very clearly a constitutional responsibility for the provinces to deliver services.

There is also a responsibility for the provinces to do the planning and the managing of the resources in their provinces. The problems the member has identified are a result of stresses and strains the provinces have had over the years.

With the budget of February 16 we have seen the biggest single investment this government has ever made, some $11.5 billion over the next five years. The budget clearly demonstrates this government's commitment to defending medicare. We are also defending access to quality care and ensuring that care is given to all those who need it regardless of their ability to pay.

Let me remind the hon. member that over the next five years $11.5 billion will be available. What is needed is more than money. What is needed is a more accountable, more integrated way of delivering services. The federal government has shown a leadership role in bringing together all the provinces, arriving at a health agreement.

I say to the member who has raised the principle of public administration that the NDP would have government run everything under the mandate of public administration. What we have in Canada today is a publicly funded but not government run method of delivery. The provinces have stewardship but they determine what partnerships they will engage, the corporate structures of their hospitals and their providers.

If people are dissatisfied with the way their health system has evolved, they must go to their provincial governments and say they are dissatisfied. Each province has done it differently and that is appropriate.

The role for the federal government is one, an important funding partner and two, the guardian of the Canada Health Act. We want to ensure that health services and the outcomes therefore are more accountable and the provinces develop a real system, more integrated models where people work together to ensure that when the people of Canada need care, they will get the care they need without having to pay for it.

[The Speaker]

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

(The House adjourned at 6.59 p.m.)