Debates of June 7th, 1999

Supply

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. As a trained recreation specialist who worked at the municipal level for 15 years, I am happy to see that the mover of the motion is a woman, namely the member for Longueuil. Too often in the past when open line shows dealt with sports it was mostly men who were interested in the topic.

I am happy that it is a woman who introduced the motion. The member for Drummond, with whom I sit on the Standing Committee on Health, also took part in the debate. I ask the following question: Why should we be involved in sports and physical activities? In my view, first and foremost for health reasons.

The provinces, the municipalities and also the federal government have a role to play in amateur sports. Decisions to compete in the Olympic Games or other international games are made at the federal level. It is too bad for Quebecers, because we would like to decide for ourselves, but in the present situation the federal government does it.

Is the present federal Liberal government really looking after our athletes? When we look at numbers we have to say no it is not. It made many cuts and I have countless examples.

Two weeks ago I attended the Canadian handball championship at Laval University. There were women's teams and men's teams. There were also community teams. Quebecers are particularly good at this sport. I spent part of the weekend there. I was supposed to be there only one day, but I went back the next day because of the high level of competition. The performances were outstanding.

I talked to the athletes and coaches. They told me how the competition had been funded. Guess how much money the federal government put into those Canadian championships. Not a penny.

The Quebec government, through various departments and health and education programs, and with help from the Université Laval, some Bloc members and a bit of publicity, finally managed to hold this Canadian handball competition. It is an absolute disgrace.

We could also talk about a third of the sports organizations, 22 out of 60, that cannot perform at the international level because of a lack of funding.

One of the recommendations of the subcommittee on amateur sport was that at least $100,000 a year be allocated to every association. What would that mean? It would mean an office, one regular employee, a knowledgeable professional in that sport who would be able to advise coaches and support volunteers. The proposal was turned down. It would have cost $2.2 million.

The hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier, who told us that everything is fine, should take a look at this problem. When we have a third of all sports associations doomed to closing down because the federal government has decided to drop its support and the hon. member tells us that everything is fine, is this not extraordinary?

I do not have much time left—

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

If the hon. member wants to put words in my mouth, he could at least quote me correctly. I have never said that everything is fine and I challenge him to find the passage in Hansard where I have said so.

[The Deputy Speaker]

This is obviously a point of debate. I know we have different views about the things that are said in this House, but this is not a point of order.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand why the member for Ottawa—Vanier would be annoyed when such things are said to him. With a third of the associations threatened, he has every reason to react.

In closing, I will read the text of the motion brought forward by the member for Longueuil. It reads as follows:

That, since the government ignored most of the recommendations by the Sub-Committee on the Study of Sport in Canada, a Sub-Committee of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, the House demand that the government place amateur athletes at the heart of its concerns and make a commitment to placing their interests before the interests of professional sport.

I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to make this motion votable.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to make this motion votable?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 6.30 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that proceedings on the motion have expired.

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

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's grab of the pension surplus was not only offensive but pathetic and embarrassing. The pension belongs to Canadian forces troops, public sector workers, the RCMP and others.

The Liberal government decided that cooking its own books was important enough to loot its employees' pension funds. This fund belongs to the members of the plan. Any surplus should be used for the benefit of the members and others affiliated with the plan such as retirees and widows.

Some 670,000 members of the pension plan are affected. The allocation of any surplus should address the contributions of those over half million Canadians.

Under the employees' pension benefits act a principle was established that surpluses do not belong to anyone and that allocation of surpluses need to be approved by a two-thirds majority of the plan members.

One legitimate reason exists. What reason exists to differentiate between a noble action and the simple cash grab we have seen by the Liberal government? What reason would the government have for not using the surplus to improve the benefits accruing to the members of the plan who created that surplus?

It seems to me as if the Liberal government has made a political decision to set a precedent for pension plan comptrollers to take the money and run. The government tried to use cheap political game playing to make it look as if the outcry against this near larceny was from a small fringe of one union. That cheap political trick was nonsense.

An advertisement placed in the Ottawa Citizen against this cash grab was signed by many, including Canadian Military College Faculty Association, Council of Graphic Artists, Canadian Merchant Service Guild, and the list goes on and on.

However the government wants to grab the money, put it in its coffers and say that it has wrestled down the debt, but it will have done so on the backs of those who need the plan, those who have contributed and worked hard. It will be done in the same way the EI fund was grabbed and taken away from those who are unemployed.

We realize over 670,000 members of the plan are affected. The allocation of the surplus needs to address the contribution of these members who have contributed to the plan.

We often hear the government say that the taxpayer owns this money and that it is the taxpayer it must protect. The people who contributed to the plan are also taxpayers. We must look at their benefits and their rights. This is a democratic principle. People should have the right to say what they feel should be done with the surpluses in their pension plans.

Who are we affecting with the legislation? We are affecting the Canadian military, the people who are fighting over in Kosovo. While they are away fighting the government is back here grabbing the surplus from their pension funds.

We are also affecting the RCMP, the people we entrust to keep law and order, to put their lives on the line fighting crime, and to do all kinds of things to protect society. While they are protecting society, who is protecting their pension fund? It is certainly not the government.

A grave injustice has been done. I am pleased to provide the government with this opportunity to apologize, to set the record straight and to ensure that every cent of funds dedicated to this plan is left in the pension fund or put to direct use to improve the benefits of the plan in a way that is acceptable to the plan's contributors.

[Tony Ianno, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Halifax West completely misses the point when he compares our commitment, as he did earlier in his question to the minister, to NATO and our willingness to provide government employees with pension plans that are more in line with the realities of today.

I totally disagree with him when he says the government was bombarding the pension plan of our armed forces. That is quite a little play on words. We know the NDP is very strong in terms of its rhetoric. On the contrary, Bill C-78 sweeps the cobwebs out of plans that were designed more than 30 years ago and needed to be updated and improved.

I also have enormous difficulty understanding why the member persists in saying that the pension plan surpluses belong to members of the Canadian forces, the public service and the RCMP. The President of the Treasury Board has stated in the House on several occasions that government employees did not have to assume any financial risks associated with funding these plans.

Canadian taxpayers have taken all the risks. Canadians have funded all the deficits. Clearly and simply they deserve to enjoy the surplus that now exists.

If the member takes the trouble to read the bill carefully, he will see the proposals being introduced and passed in Bill C-78 and Bill C-71 will provide government employees with more benefits than they had before.

The hon. member for Halifax West should also keep himself better informed about everything the government is doing to improve the lot of Canadians, especially members of the RCMP, the Canadian forces and the public service.

I stress that the bill enhances and protects the benefits the public service, the RCMP and Canadian forces employees and pensioners receive and that the benefits as defined in their plans will continue to be theirs and guaranteed by the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to pursue an issue I raised in the House regarding the reuse of disposable medical devices. This matter came to light in February of this year as the result of some excellent investigative work by a reporter with the Winnipeg Free Press .

It was revealed that disposable medical devices were being reused in hospitals in Winnipeg and elsewhere across Canada. Let us be clear. We are talking about medical devices licensed for single use only. We are talking about repeated use of catheters and other devices contrary to manufacturer warnings and despite the real possibility of disease transmission.

It should also be noted that since the time I raised this matter in the House a report has been released by Winnipeg microbiologist Dr. Michelle Alfa confirming there is a danger that surgical devices reused against the advice of manufacturers might transmit infections between patients or break down inside the body.

What has the federal government's response been? The Minister of Health said he would consider calling a meeting of provincial health ministers in order to develop, possibly, a national policy on this issue. Does that not just blow us away? We are at a loss for words in terms of that response.

Here we have a problem of national proportions, a practice that is certainly risky and potentially lethal, and a matter that falls directly under the jurisdiction of the health protection branch. Where is the federal government? In essence nowhere. Even the spokesperson of the manufacturers of medical devices said surely Health Canada has some role as a protector of the public health of Canada.

It is a clear-cut case of federal government negligence and dereliction of duty, reinforced by the fact that the government has sat on a report for five years which warned of widespread concerns about the risk of reusing disposable medical devices.

For five years the government has known that reused disposable devices like catheters and tubes going into the stomach and intestines can cause the transmission of disease and even breakdown in the patient's body. To make matters even worse, for three years the government has had the benefit of a comprehensive set of guidelines done by the Canadian Health Care Association and provided to all health care facilities regarding the reuse of single use medical devices, and still nothing.

Other countries have taken action. France and Sweden forbid the use of disposable medical devices. In the rest of Europe equipment must be certified. Any kind of reused equipment must be clearly certified indicating it continues to meet standards.

Why not in Canada? Why has the government forsaken health protection? Why does it not act on a study that is five years old? Why does it not put in use the recommendations of the Canadian Health Care Association?

Doctors want national policies. Manufacturers want action. Patients clearly want to see the government uphold its responsibilities under the Health Protection Act. Why does the government not act and act now?

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond further to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre concerning the reuse of single use medical devices by hospitals.

The practice of resterilizing and reusing devices labelled by the manufacturer of single use devices has been common in Canada for some time. Since 1994 there have been a number of major conferences on the issue. At none of these conferences were serious fears expressed about the hazards of the practice.

Since 1991 the Quebec minister of health has published three guidelines in this regard: first, to endorse the practice, then to annul the first notice and, finally, to again amend it in order to permit reuse under certain conditions. All of this points to confusion regarding the dangers of this practice.

In 1994 and 1996 Health Canada provided funding and support for research to the Canadian Health Care Association for the development of two policy documents on reuse, which were largely accepted by Canadian hospitals and published in the United States by the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation.

Delivery of health care and the types and the use made of drugs and medical devices in hospitals are provincial and territorial matters.

Health Canada has demonstrated leadership in developing national guidelines on reuse. The department is willing to work with the provinces, the territories and the advisory committee on health services to continue that work.

[The Deputy 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 6.41 p.m.)