Debates of Feb. 17th, 2000

Veterans Health Care

[An hon. member]

No.

[Bob Wood, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place today to respond to the motion of the hon. member for Edmonton East regarding national standards for veterans health care.

The motion calls for maintenance and special needs provisions that would be based upon national standards. These standards would be agreed upon by all provinces before health care responsibilities for veterans were to be devolved to any province for any portion of care.

The government's experience to date is that there has been no problem in the quality of care that could not be solved through its relationship and its agreements with the contract facilities and the provinces. If situations arise where action is required we should let the existing system work, rather than begin the long process of working with the provinces to create a national system.

I am not saying that the system cannot be improved. There is room to do that. Veterans Affairs Canada has 75 contract facilities across the country. The department encourages all of its contract facilities to be accredited. Veterans Affairs Canada also recognizes and respects provincial standards of care and, to provide assurance that the level of care is meeting the health needs of veterans, works with the provinces on quality assurance issues. The department also monitors its own set of 10 outcome areas in its contract and community facilities.

This is the way to improve the system, through the agencies and authorities now in place and through the effective partnership that has evolved with the provinces in the delivery of health care to veterans. That is why we should continue to allow the work that is already under way to be refined and improved upon in the best interests of Canada's veterans.

The problem with the motion is that it involves complex issues and proposes a very simplistic solution. No one who has watched the evolution of health care across the country would say that there are simple solutions, especially when these matters involve both federal and provincial jurisdictions and both the private and public sectors.

In resolving these complex issues there are several constants of which Canadians can be assured. One constant is the good work and continued interest of veterans organizations. They have monitored the provision of health care for veterans very closely over the years. I can assure the House that if the health care delivery system somehow fails to meet the needs of our veterans, these organizations let us know it. They are very forthright in their views and they enable the health care system in this country to respond.

Another constant is the emphasis that Canadians, as a whole, place on ensuring that our veterans receive treatment commensurate with the gratitude we feel as a nation; our gratitude for the sacrifices of those who served their country so well in our fights for freedom and democracy.

A third constant is the importance that the Parliament of Canada places on making sure that veterans receive appropriate health care. Today's debate on the motion of the hon. member is one example. Another is the report done by the subcommittee of the other place, entitled “Raising the Bar: Creating a New Standard in Veterans Health Care”. This report provided input for a new residential care strategy by the Government of Canada.

Finally, a fourth constant in dealing with the complex issue of health care for veterans is the work of Veterans Affairs Canada. I will talk about the services the department provides in a moment.

First, I would like to emphasize that when it comes to actual delivery of the health care services there are many different forces at work. For example, within the health care system there is a shift toward primary health care that emphasizes early identification of problems or potential problems and taking a holistic approach to human health.

The results are a growing emphasis on home care. Veterans Affairs Canada has been at the forefront of this movement with its veterans independence program, VIP. This program was first put in place in the early 1980s and has evolved to meet the changing needs of veterans. Through VIP, clients are offered choices for services based on their needs. The idea is to permit them to remain at home or in their communities as long as possible. This program has been called one of the most comprehensive and advanced home care programs in the world and it may well set the standard for the delivery of health care services in the 21st century.

Another important shift in health care delivery in Canada is the aging of our veterans. This is one of the areas where Veterans Affairs Canada is making a significant contribution, not only to the health of veterans, but to our understanding of the ways to respond to the aging population. The department has been recognized internationally for its work in research and care giving. The department has been involved in a number of research projects and helps the government to make informed decisions on ways to ensure that the health system meets the changing needs of all Canadians.

Another change in the provision of health care in Canada is the shift throughout the country from a clinical model of delivering health to a residential model. Clinical care utilizes nurses as the primary provider of patient care. In a residential model the nurses and other health care professionals serve as team leaders and most of the direct care to the patients is provided by health care aides who are part of these teams. Veterans Affairs Canada, through its review of veterans care needs project team, has determined that this emphasis on residential care is in keeping with the principal needs of veterans. Clinical care is still available for veterans and it is maintained in the larger residential care facilities.

The motion of the hon. member for Edmonton East proposes national standards for residential care facilities agreed upon by the provinces. But given this complex and changing environment, I do not believe that agreeing on a set of standards is realistic. The environment is changing too quickly. We know that reaching agreements with the provinces takes time. By the time an agreement is reached the environment can change so much that the terms of the agreement are no longer applicable.

Moreover, the needs of Canada's veterans are becoming more urgent as these veterans get older. We need to act quickly to address veterans' needs, not wait to reach an agreement with the provinces. I believe that the federal government has taken a more effective course in using the processes now at our disposal to promote a high standard of health care in these facilities.

One of the most important aspects of the process now in place is the vigilance of veterans organizations. Where they have perceived that health care delivery has fallen below a standard they feel should apply to veterans, they have spoken out and the federal government has responded. For that reason, we have a process in place today which helps to ensure that veterans receive good care in these facilities. The process involves an annual review of long term care facilities. Staff of Veterans Affairs Canada, usually the area councillors and district office nurses, visit contract and community facilities. They speak to the veterans on a confidential basis. They ask questions designed to determine whether the needs of our veterans are being met.

The questions they ask involve 10 specific areas of health care that research has shown to be the most important for our veterans. Those 10 areas are: safety and security, food quality, access to clinical services, access to specialized services, medication regime, access to spiritual guidance, socialization and recreation, activation and ambulation, personal care, and sanitation.

This is an extensive list. It is a comprehensive list of the key issues that would likely be negotiated with the provinces if we were to try to establish a national standard for veterans health care. It is a list of key health care deliverables that are already being applied across the country, not as a result of an agreement with the provinces, but through the persuasion of Veterans Affairs Canada.

The hon. member has good intentions with this motion. He wants to ensure that veterans can receive quality health care at long term residence facilities, but it would mean a more complex round of negotiations with the provinces. It would become more difficult, not easier, to make any changes necessary to improve the health care provided to veterans. Such negotiations would delay the real changes that can be made now to improve residential care for veterans. There are already initiatives in place that will deliver the results we all desire, that is, quality health care for our veterans.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the member on his motion. I know that it stems from a sensitivity to our elders, who certainly acted on the strength of their convictions in World War I and even World War II, although certain historians claim that, strictly speaking, it was all one war.

So that there is no misunderstanding, I would like to go over the motion once again. The Reform Party member is moving:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should institute national standards for veterans' health care with maintenance and special needs provisions, and have these standards agreed upon by all provinces before devolving responsibilities to any province for any portion of care.

I think that in our respective ridings we all have veterans who come to us about the deteriorating health care system and the various administrative difficulties they are experiencing. But it seems to me that there is a problem with the motion being suggested.

First of all, the assumption is made that management of veterans services is an exclusively federal jurisdiction. Even though funding for access to health care comes from the federal government, the fact remains that the services people receive are often provided by the various provincial health care systems.

It is difficult for us to support national standards. True, we already have the Canada Health Act, which is somewhat of a paradox. When one looks at the constitutional distribution of powers, one realizes that, except for the military aspect and for quarantine, the federal government has little responsibility with regard to health.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to salute my colleague, the chairman of the Standing Committee on Health, who always seems interested when I make a speech. I am not so pretentious as to think he is a member of my fan club, but I do think he is a friend.

I was talking about the paradox of having a national health act when the Constitution gives the federal government very little responsibility with regard to health since it is only responsible for the health of veterans and for any issues related to quarantine and to mechanisms to prevent contagion.

Even though the federal government does not have primary responsibility with regard to health, it has a Department of Health employing several thousand public servants.

The Canada Health Act promotes the five following principles: universality, portability, comprehensiveness and public administration, and of course universality. These principles are the main features of our national legislation on the health care system. Of course, we believe that these principles have merit, but that it is primarily the provinces that must ensure the comprehensiveness, the universality, the public character, and the portability of the health care system.

In other words, no matter in what region, in Quebec or in the rest of Canada, people must be sure to have access to health care.

We would readily have agreed. The Reform member who, I know, is greatly concerned by these issues should know this: we would certainly have supported a motion asking the federal government to restore transfer payments for health. But when this government becomes history, we will never forget that, through its policies, its unilateral cuts, from 1993 to 2001, this government cut several billion dollars in health care alone. This must be said to all those who are listening today. On the whole, transfer payments were reduced by $42 billion, and nearly a third of that was cut from health care, and for Quebec alone, it was $4 billion.

Lucien Bouchard, the Premier of Quebec, one of its great premiers, is certainly one of the most gifted men of his generation. I believe that, if I called for unanimous consent, I would get it, acknowledging Lucien Bouchard as certainly one of the most gifted men of his generation.

At the first ministers conference, the Premier of Quebec reminded the others that, Quebec alone had had $4 billion cut from health. I believe that we need to make the connection with the position the premiers adopted and the motion our Reform Party colleague is proposing. If we are to provide better care to our fellow citizens who served on the battlefield because of their convictions, adopting national standards is not the way to do it. I repeat, however, that this objective is an eminently desirable one. The way to do it is to reinvest in the health care systems existing in the provinces.

I am dying to see what is in the budget. I shall be here on Monday, February 28, of this year of our Lord 2000 AD, in order to find out what the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance have to say. This will be a historical responsibility; all members are going to follow the budget speech.

We know very well that it will not be possible, whether in the specific case of care for veterans or the case of all those covered by the health system who end up in the emergency departments, in the CLSCs, in the institutions. The people in those places know that the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance need to speak the truth and redress the wrongs of the past.

Let me say that the Quebec government, which is one of the best ever, wants to offer health services to our fellow citizens, but is being deprived of several billions of dollars because the federal government, suddenly and without negotiating with the provinces, acted unilaterally. Do you know what “unilaterally” means? It means a one-sided decision. The federal government without negotiating with the provinces deprived them in a cavalier fashion of several billions of dollars. As I said, we appreciate the motion.

I think that the hon. member, who is the chair of the Standing Committee on Health and who is said to be a strong supporter of the Minister of Health for future events, will join me in asking his government to exert pressure and to make money available in the Minister of Finance's budget, so that the provinces can meet the needs of all their clienteles, including the veterans.

Again, I thank the hon. member for being sensitive to this issue, but we do not believe that the solution lies in national standards.

I cannot, as a Bloc Quebecois member who is highly respected by his peers on all sides of the House, support the idea of national standards. This would not be in agreement with our vision. I would go against my own principles.

I will conclude by asking all members of this House to ensure that transfer payments are restored, to make sure that the provinces, which are responsible for the health care system, can meet the needs of all their clienteles, including the veterans, with new moneys. This is our position on that motion.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise tonight to speak to this motion, which I think is a very important motion. I want to commend my hon. colleague from Edmonton East for bringing forward his concern for the well-being and the health of our veterans.

We in the NDP support the motion. We think it is very important that there be national standards for veterans' health care.

National Defence, as we know, comes under federal jurisdiction and we feel that the federal government must not abandon its responsibility to ensure that those who defend our country receive quality health care.

Unfortunately, this is not happening at present. We all know the many stories, and we see them coming forth daily, of our military personnel who are returning home from missions abroad: the gulf war, Somalia, various other missions. These people are ending up suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, depleted uranium and so forth.

What we see is a state of denial by DND with respect to even giving these veterans the benefit of the doubt that their illnesses may have in fact been caused by something that happened while they were overseas.

I will speak for a moment on depleted uranium. I attended a briefing today where DND again attempted to indicate that there was no real serious concern about this material, no danger in this and that there was no evidence to support this. However, this seems to fly in the face of the very real evidence that we see from the people who are suffering and have been exposed to this material.

I will remind the House of what Dr. Rosalie Bertell, a famous epidemiologist, had to say about depleted uranium. She said:

DU is highly toxic to humans, both chemically as a heavy metal and radiologically as an alpha particle emitter which is very dangerous when taken internally.

Upon impact, the DU bursts into flames. It produces a toxic and radioactive ceramic aerosol that is much lighter than uranium dust. It can travel in the air tens of kilometres from the point of release, or settle as dust suspended in the air waiting to be stirred up by human or animal movement.

It is very small and can be breathed by anyone from babies and pregnant women to the elderly and the sick. This radioactive and toxic ceramic can stay in the lungs for years, irradiating the surrounding tissue with powerful alpha particles. It can affect the lungs, gastrointestinal system, liver, kidneys, bones, other tissues and renal systems.

She goes on to say:

It is most likely a major contributor to the Gulf War Syndrome experienced by the veterans and the people of Iraq.

We know that after the war Iraq experienced explosive rates of stillbirths, children born with defects, childhood leukemia and other cancers and, in particular, near the Basara region where these shells were fired.

I think we have to look seriously at the situation concerning depleted uranium and not put our heads in the sand and try to pretend that it does not exist.

However, we do see that there is a constant state of denial by the department to connect any of the symptoms experienced to depleted uranium or to the missions that our soldiers have been on.

Now, after a lot of pressure, a lot of studies and so forth, the government has finally agreed to do some testing of the veterans for depleted uranium. Even then, I have some concern that the testing may not be as thorough, as impartial and as complete as one would like because the talk today was only about the testing of urine. However, if we want to have any faith restored in our military and in the capability of the government to support our men and women when they return home, we must take an impartial look at this whole situation.

Another example of why we need some high standards of health care for our veterans is the case of the former Sergeant Kipling, a veteran with 26 years experience. Eight years ago he refused to take a vaccine when it was administered before the gulf war conflict. What did he get for this refusal? He got a court martial. He refused the vaccine because he was concerned about his health and about the effects of the vaccine, which has not been approved in Canada for general use. He had many questions surrounding its safety and his well-being, yet rather than getting support, he was court-martialled.

Let us look at those individuals who do not come under military health care. Those of us who come under the provincial health care system do not find ourselves faced with these problems. We do not have to accept medicines or vaccinations that we do not want to take. However, this is the case in the military.

If the federal government does institute national standards for health care with maintenance and special needs provisions, as indicated in the motion, it may indeed have a problem having such standards agreed upon by all the provinces, particularly if the federal government does not restore the funding that has been cut from the health care system. If there is going to be a standard of health care there has to be sufficient funding to meet that standard.

We all know that there have been billions and billions of dollars cut from the health care system to the point that even our provincial health care systems are struggling today. People are waiting in long lineups in hospitals. People are not able to get the kind of care that they should get because of the funding crisis in the health care system.

Even if we did agree to national standards for our veterans, there is still a problem in that regard if there is not sufficient funding coming forward.

The motion talks about having these standards agreed upon by all provinces before devolving responsibility to any province for any portion of care. I would point out that the federal government is extremely good at devolving responsibilities to other levels of government or to other parties without first putting the things in order that should be put in order.

Let us look at the example of the Halifax International Airport. That airport was eventually passed down to the Halifax Airport Authority without the federal government first accepting responsibility and cleaning up the environmental hazard due to the pyritic slate in the area. This was a very important issue that should have been resolved before the transfer took place. However, the federal government put the authority in a position that it had to take it or leave it in the final bargaining. The authority had to finally accept what should have been the responsibility of the federal government, which was to clean up the hazard before devolving the airport down to the authority.

Again, I would have that kind of concern with national health standards for our veterans. We should work these things out in such a way that we do not leave the provinces with any responsibilities that should rightly be carried by the federal government.

We can see from the massive cuts that have taken place in our health care system that we are now slowly moving toward a two-tier American style health system. It is time for Canadians to take back control of our country, to take back control of the things we should control.

I recall back to 1993 when the federal government decided to get out of the housing program and pass the responsibility over to the provinces. We now see the results of that where we have many people without homes who are dying on the street. Why? It is because the federal government withdrew from the social housing program. It devolved and put this responsibility down to the provinces and again did not provide adequate funding to maintain adequate shelter for our citizens.

We must be very careful when we talk about the devolving of responsibility and passing it down. The federal government seems to be good at wanting to privatize things, to put them into the hands of the private sector as if they can do so much better than public control.

This is a very important motion that has been brought forward concerning the health of our veterans. It is very important that Canada supports and looks after those who have gone off to defend our borders, to fight in places where perhaps we would not even want to go ourselves, and to carry out jobs that many of us would not want to do. The least we can do is make sure that when they return they are well looked after and that we give them the benefit of the doubt when they are suffering.

I will wind up very quickly by saying again that I commend the member for bringing forth his concern in this motion. I certainly feel that all of us in the House should be concerned about the well-being of our veterans and do everything we can to ensure that their health and safety are carried forward in a very positive way. We should also remember the effect not just on those veterans but on their families, their wives, their children, and the communities in which they live.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I understand the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest is speaking clothed as he is with special dispensation.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. You might notice that I am being surrounded by some of the most cerebral people in the House. It is nice to be accompanied by so many members from all sides of the House. It very seldom happens in this place.

There are a couple of things I want to make clear from the outset. Our critic in this area, who should have spoken tonight, the member for Saint John, had to go back to her constituency. I am pleased to be speaking in her place.

If we look back at people who have taken on causes in the House from time to time, I do not think any member of the House has been more dedicated to a particular cause than the member for Saint John. She has done an extremely good job in working with the government, sometimes criticizing the government but certainly working with the minister on this file.

If the veterans are looking at one particular minister in the past that really did it all for them it would be George Hees. We are hoping that the new minister from Newfoundland will evolve into that type of minister in terms of historical recognition of someone that really did something for veterans. Obviously there is more to do.

I want to read the motion to Canadians so they will have an idea of what we are talking about. The member for Edmonton East, and we applaud him for it, moved this motion:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should institute national standards for veterans health care with maintenance and special needs provisions, and have these standards agreed upon by all provinces before dissolving responsibilities to any province for any portion of care.

The Bloc member was somewhat agitated and a bit emotional on the topic. Maybe the members from Quebec would agree with me in what I am about to say. It is probably the only point we will agree on tonight. The veterans hospital in Montreal is a hospital I am familiar with because that little stretch on Ste. Anne de Bellevue is the shortest piece of road between routes 20 and 40. When I do from time to time drive back to New Brunswick I take that little street by the hospital we are speaking about, the one that led to this discussion. It is the last veterans hospital in Canada that will be taken away and devolved into provincial jurisdiction. In other words, the federal government will move that hospital over to the province of Quebec to look after the veterans. It is telling us that is just a proposal. No negotiations are presently under way but that is obviously what it is looking at. I believe it is the last hospital in Canada so designated.

This is part of the bigger picture which I think every member of the House has expressed in terms of the federal government's lack of funding in health care. We are seeing that from one end of Canada to the other in the have provinces and have not provinces. We are finding that every province has to scramble to find a way to fund health care because of the denial and cutbacks in funding from Ottawa.

When we are talking about the five principles of health care in the country, those principles have been violated time and time again. We do not have a so-called universal system of health care. Health care delivery, primary care delivery, varies from province to province. Some provinces can afford to do more. Some provinces cannot afford to do more. Some provinces have continually done less year after year after year.

Why is this? It is because of the cutbacks by the federal government. We might argue about what the numbers are, but most of us, regardless of what side of the House we sit on, are arguing in the $10 billion to $12 billion range. That is a lot of change, but it is money that the provinces cannot come up with.

When the model for universal health care or medicare in Canada was invented back a number of years ago and we entered into agreements with the provinces, the federal government was coming in for a bigger share of the cost of delivering those services.

We have to recognize that constitutionally the delivery of primary care is a provincial jurisdiction. Maybe what we are talking about, to have this matter finally solved, is some kind of constitutional arrangement that would allow people who actually make the rules to somehow have access to the tax dollars to do that. Presently the federal government has the money to do it but it is trying to enforce the rules on the provinces without giving them the tax dollars to actually do it. We have to sit down and intelligently talk about it at some point.

Just before coming to the House I was in a meeting. Believe it or not the topic of discussion was the delivery of health care services to seniors, our aging population. As hon. members know, that is the next crisis that will hit health care and Canadian society as our aging population continues to grow.

It is heartwarming that one of the individuals to whom I spoke just a few short minutes was a gentleman named Larry F. Gray. He is the service officer for the Royal Canadian Legion. He is a retired gentleman and donates a good deal of his time to helping veterans, older citizens, cope with the realities of the present day. I should have him standing beside me because he could contribute to this debate like none of us could.

One of the statistics he gave me indicated that there are approximately 1,630 legion branches in Canada with 450,000 legion members. If we were creative and we wanted to do something, imagine what we could do if we could mobilize on a community basis those people back home. I think we have to find some way of reinventing the wheel. I know tax dollars will do part of it but they cannot do all of it.

I know the federal minister raised this trial balloon a few short weeks ago. It was systematically shot down by just about every province in terms of delivering community care back in the communities, back in the provinces. We were talking about home care and community care. It was routinely shot down by the premiers. It goes back to my earlier argument. They are saying “Listen, we cannot afford to deliver the programs that we have out there presently. Let us not come up with something else”.

We have to sit down as a nation at the table and realize our limitations. What can we do to solve the problem? Let us not continue to argue about it. Let us not continue to talk about the past. We have to look at the future for ways of realistically dealing with the health care crisis in Canada.

The member's motion before us is laudable. It should be supported by every member in the House. At the end of the argument he is not just talking about veterans, although that is the primary concern here this evening. It is about all Canadians. He is really saying in this motion that we should support health care to a level where all Canadians can expect the best health care in the world. We are capable of doing that as a nation.

We are getting into education. We are getting into a provincial jurisdiction again. Let us realize as parliamentarians that the two biggest issues are education and health care. They go hand in hand. Let us educate our young people so they have meaningful jobs and the kinds of income that will sustain our tax system and support the programs we are talking about in the House such as the best health care system in the world. We can do it. I applaud the member. We are in a position to support his motion.

[The Deputy Speaker]

If the hon. member for Edmonton East speaks at this point, he will close the debate.

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their comments on this very important issue. I believe it is possible to develop national standards. I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his comments. He made reference to a comprehensive list that is used now to discuss and to look at each individual veterans health care centre. It would not be complicated to expand that list, to formalize that list so we have national standards.

The reason for national standards for veterans health care is that veterans are not and have not experienced the life experiences of ordinary citizens. This manifests itself on my visits to the veterans health care centres in many ways. For example, the oxygen rooms in veterans health care centres are much larger than in ordinary senior homes. There is also psychiatric difficulties that veterans experience which can manifest themselves in their later days considerably more than with ordinary seniors because some of them had horrific experiences in their wartime service.

I will relate a quick story of my experience in the military as a military policeman being sent to downtown Trenton to pick up a person from a hotel. As I was driving him to his home I thought he was receiving fantastic service for an impaired corporal. I found out why I was picking him up and taking him home.

Halfway home he broke down and started mimicking machine gun sounds. He broke into tears. I left him at his doorstep with his wife consoling him. On my return to the guardhouse I asked the sergeant what had happened. He explained. This gentleman was a tailgunner in World War II. He had taken off, tired and fell fast asleep. The bumping of the takeoff awoke him. He saw a plane in his gunsight and shot it out of the sky. It was one of his own planes. These type of experiences only war veterans have had.

Yes, veterans in veterans care facilities need extra consideration. Yes, they need extra rules. Yes, they need extra protection. This is very clear, whether it is the Perley Rideau Hospital where there are ongoing discussions right now or Ste Anne de Bellevue. Before we devolve more we should develop standards that would reflect the extra psychiatric help. My experience and the experience of others who have been in the military is that we were brought up on cigarettes. A lifetime of that does affect them. There is a substantially higher level of lung problems among veterans.

Yes, there is need for extra provisions for veterans health care centres. How could an ordinary hospital understand all of the problems of veterans? It is very important for these issues to be addressed in special facilities with special rules for the veterans who need it.

I asked earlier for unanimous consent to make this motion votable. This was denied. Therefore, I now seek unanimous consent that the motion be withdrawn and that the subject matter be referred to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent that the motion be withdrawn and that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is no consent. The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. As the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the order is dropped from the order paper.

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

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on December 10, 1999 I asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs when Canada planned to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Tonight I would like to reiterate some of the reasons why it is in Canada's interest to ratify this law.

Canada signed the United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea in 1982. This marked the culmination of more than 14 years of work involving participation by more than 150 countries. The convention needed ratification by 60 countries. It entered into force in 1994 without Canada's ratification.

Today the law of the sea is the virtual constitution of the world's oceans. It regulates a wide range of issues including pollution prevention, conservation of fish stocks, limits of coastal state jurisdictions, states' rights and responsibilities and mining of the ocean floor. The law of the sea is a landmark achievement of international law treating the resources of the ocean floor as the common heritage of mankind.

Now that 143 countries have ratified the law of the sea, now that 18 years have passed since Canada signed it, and now that the red book promise is seven years old, this globally recognized regime is still without Canada.

The 1993 Liberal Party red book says: “New multilateral regimes are needed to address many emerging global issues, the management of global fish stocks, the protection of the world's atmosphere” and so on. It goes on to say: “A Liberal government will foster the development of such multilateral forums and agreements, including an improved law of the sea”.

On December 10, 1999 the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that the only question remaining was the complete ratification of the straddling stocks agreement. The excuse Canada gave for not ratifying the convention in 1994 was problems with the deep seabed mining provisions of the convention. Canada is thus putting obstacles in the way of ratification of the law of the sea.

This time Canada is awaiting complete ratification of the agreement for the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. This agreement promotes good order in the oceans through the effective management and conservation of high seas resources by establishing: detailed minimum international standards for the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks; by setting out principles for the conservation and management of those fish stocks based on the precautionary approach and the best available scientific information; by ensuring that such measures taken under national jurisdiction and in the high seas are compatible and coherent; and finally, ensuring there are effective mechanisms for compliance and enforcement of those measures on the high seas.

Canada's objective of conserving national fish stocks cannot be achieved by the straddling fish stock agreement alone. Canada must achieve its objectives through international co-operation. Canada, with three oceans and immense marine resources, has a special responsibility to show international leadership. Therefore Canada can only gain by ratifying the law of the sea convention rather than risk losing its international reputation by further delaying the ratification of this important law.

[Denis Paradis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Davenport for his comments.

Canada promised to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and it will keep that promise. But it is important that it do so at the right time.

What constitutes the right time will depend on Canadian high seas fisheries policy.

Since 1995 Canada has focused its efforts on the development and adoption of the UN agreement on straddling and highly migratory fish stocks. This agreement fills the gaps left in the law of the sea convention relating to high seas fisheries management. Canada played a leading role in the negotiation of the UN fish agreement which provides for a strong conservation, management and enforcement regime on the high seas. We need an effective international high seas enforcement regime to protect fish stocks which straddle Canada's 200 mile fishing zone and the adjacent high seas.

We intend to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as soon as an effective high seas regime is in place. This will include the introduction of the UN fisheries agreement and its effective enforcement between Canada and the main nations fishing off our coasts.

Canada ratified the United Nations fisheries agreement on August 3, 1999, and encourages other nations, including members of the European Union, to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, on November 5 I asked the Minister of Finance a question about taxes for business and why he did not undertake to reduce taxes for businesses to help the economy. At that time the parliamentary secretary responded that we already have very low taxes for businesses. I simply disagree with that statement.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources will be answering my question, I assume the Liberal government views taxes as a natural resource to be gathered into their coffers to redistribute as they see fit. We are witnessing that with what is happening at human resources. We know all about that billion dollar boondoggle. Perhaps it is because of the underlying belief that tax dollars are a natural resource. I can only assume that.

I did see the parliamentary secretary practising his answer. I hope he puts away the scripted response that has been given to him by the department and actually answers the question. It would be reassuring.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, why does the hon. member not put his script away? What is he reading?

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

Mr. Speaker, I hear the member for Waterloo—Wellington also saying that he wishes the parliamentary secretary would put away his scripted question and answer as well. I thank him for that.

The Minister of Industry has just wakened to the fact that corporate taxes are very high in this country and they need to be reduced.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Rubbish.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Waterloo—Wellington says rubbish, but the Minister of Industry says this, and I will quote it directly for him and send him the article:

Essentially the brain drain is a job drain.

What studies are turning up is not that personal taxes are such a big deal, but that opportunity is leading people to the United States. If it is opportunity, then we have to look at the policies that are going to increase opportunity in Canada.

He goes on to state that corporate taxes are high on his list of wishes. That was the Minister of Industry. I hope he has a chance to sit down and talk to the Minister of Finance in the next couple of days because the Prime Minister already leaked that the budget would be announced on February 28. We hope there are going to be substantial reductions in taxation, not only for small businesses, but for hard working Canadians as well. We really hope that will be the case. We somehow doubt it, but we hope that will be the case.

I am going to anticipate part of what the answer of my colleague will be: that we have low taxes, the minister has reduced taxes, everything is going fine, just wait until February 28 and we will see what kind of great things the government is going to do. I would state that this is the government that has increased taxes year after year in a shell game approach of saying that it has reduced taxes when, in effect, it has increased them.

The government does not see that reducing personal income taxes and taxes for business will stimulate the economy. The Reform Party has a proposal which has been endorsed by WEFA, a highly regarded independent organization which the Minister of Finance uses himself for his own numbers that he runs for his budget projections, which says that this is a very good program in which we will be able to substantially reduce taxation to stimulate the economy.

It is my wish and my hope that the government will take such an approach to stimulate the economy and to substantially reduce taxes for businesses and for all Canadians. However, I do not think it is actually going to be delivered by the Liberals because of their actions of increasing taxes over and over again. We will wait to see.

I urge Canadians to wait to see what kind of new spending the government is going to announce when the budget is brought forward. I wait with bated breath to hear my colleague's, hopefully unscripted, response.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say first that the sense of humour of the member for Dewdney—Alouette is almost as good as his hockey skills.

The government has always taken the issue of business taxes very seriously. In fact it was this government which set up a technical committee on business taxation, announced in the 1996 budget, because we were and are concerned about the impact of business taxes on jobs and growth.

However, we must not lose perspective concerning the problems we inherited when first elected in 1993. In fact we were left with quite a mess.

First, we had to deal with a $42 billion deficit. Nothing could take priority over wrestling that deficit to the ground. In fact, we have announced a string of surpluses which, to my understanding, is a record in the history of this country, and we are proud of that.

Second, Canada still faces a debt burden that is the second largest in the OECD. Five years ago 36 cents out of every dollar collected was used to pay interest on the debt. We have successfully brought it down to 27 cents on each dollar, and it is falling. This is clearly an important problem that needs further fixing.

Third, we have a personal income tax burden which is the highest we have had in our history, granted, and too high in relation to other developed nations. That is why this is our number one tax priority.

However, this is not to say that we will not act on business taxes. We will. The 1999 fall economic and fiscal update stated that this government is committed to ensuring that we have an internationally competitive business tax system.

I am confident that the upcoming budget will lay out a multi-year tax reduction plan which will respond responsibly to our commitment to split surpluses between tax and debt reduction on the one hand and social and economic investment on the other hand.

I remind the member across the way to be here on February 28 to hear the good news.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

(The House adjourned at 6.28 p.m.)