Debates of Oct. 28th, 2004

Supply

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

The member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant has the floor, very quickly, even though I did not fully understand the question.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

It was only a comment, Mr. Speaker.

[Denise Poirier-Rivard, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the hon. member for Terrebonne--Blainville that I appreciate her comments because I have been in such a situation. It is true that supply management has not been taken into account. Also, there is the embargo that is preventing us from exporting our animals.

One way or another, in my opinion, the majority of the members in the House will agree with me that not a day goes by that we do not read something in the paper about problems involving agriculture, animal husbandry or vegetable growing. There is an imbalance. There truly is a crisis in agriculture. It is time to address the issue. Let us not forget that we are all here tonight because agriculture feeds us all.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Etobicoke North.

I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House on this motion. I believe it speaks to some important issues that are essential to the future of our Canadian federation. As my colleagues on this side of the House have already stated, the fiscal imbalance discussed in the motion by the opposition simply does not exist in the country.

The provinces have exclusive access to some of the fastest growing revenue streams in the country. More important, total provincial and territorial revenues have been far above those received by the federal government for more than 20 years. This trend is not expected to end any time soon. However, there are other reasons why the concept of the fiscal imbalance is a non-starter, not the least of which is the fact that the federal government will, over the next 10 years, provide an additional $74 billion to the provinces and territories through increased funding for health care and a new formula for both equalization and territorial formula financing.

Indeed, I would like to address the bulk of my remarks on a topic that has been very much in the news recently; the issue of equalization. This has been one of the pillars of our federation for more than four decades and it is another important argument against the idea that a fiscal imbalance actually exists.

To begin with, the equalization and territorial formula financing programs ensure that all Canadians, no matter where they live, have access to reasonably comparable public services. This commitment helps to ensure that all Canadians are treated equally from coast to coast. However, the provinces and territories have been complaining for several years about how the federal government funds the equalization and territorial formula and the planning difficulties that they have faced as a result of the year to year swings in the amount of payments they receive under these programs. These are legitimate concerns and the government has done everything it can to address them.

Just two days ago, Canada's premiers and territorial leaders agreed to the government's proposed framework for equalization. This new framework represents the most fundamental and sweeping changes in the program's history. The goal of this new framework is nothing less than to make payments to the provinces and territories more stable and predictable while significantly increasing the overall level of funding.

Over the next decade, this new framework will provide $33 billion more in equalization and territorial financing payments to the provinces and territories. That is quite an improvement, but the government recognizes that simply pumping more money into the system is just not enough.

We need to take a hard look at how the current legislation on equalization and territorial financing allocates money to the provinces and territories. That is why the new framework calls for a review to be conducted on how the legislated equalization and territorial financing levels should be allocated for the provinces and territories in the 2006-07 fiscal year and beyond.

Our government recognizes the need to ensure that all provinces and territories can offer the best possible services to their citizens. Equalization and territorial formula financing programs are clear evidence of our commitment in this area. The programs, along with health funding through the Canada health transfer, also offer clear evidence that the fiscal imbalance referred to in this motion does not exist in the country.

For those reasons and those that have been outlined by my colleagues, I cannot support the motion and would urge other members of the House to do the same.

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River. I have known the member for many years. He has a long history in public life, having served as the mayor of Thunder Bay and as the president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

The question I would like to ask the member is on an issue that I raised earlier today. It is the notion of the fiscal imbalance. I raised the point that we have three levels of government in Canada; federal, provincial and municipal. I would argue that there is a fiscal imbalance in terms of the taxing powers compared to the spending responsibilities.

Certainly, when the federal government cut its transfers to the provinces in the mid-1990s, when that member was in municipal government, many would argue that caused the provinces to pass that through to municipalities and the municipalities bore the brunt of it.

What are the member's thoughts on this notion. If the federal government did more to help the provincial governments, would that not allow the provincial governments some more flexibility to pass through some of that generosity to the municipalities?

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question is quite a good one because it clearly is on the minds of many Canadians throughout the municipal field.

There is no doubt that the question of predictability and determined amounts, including the fact that people want to know when these things will happen, have been front burner issues for municipalities and provinces. I believe the legislation and agreement go a long way in allowing provinces to answer those questions of predictability especially.

With the federal involvement, with the negotiations about to begin with municipalities on the gas tax and with the recent history of the $590 million allocated this year through the GST rebate, the federal government is getting involved. No matter what the legislative constraints may be, we will be there.

All through this debate, I have listened very keenly to the questioning. I have thought about how municipalities have been addressed. I feel very strongly that this type of increase in funding, the allocations that will stabilize the provinces and give more predictability to their own budget processes, will be most helpful to the municipalities.

[Roger Clavet, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the remarks made by my colleague for Thunder Bay—Rainy River were very interesting. Nonetheless, I find it somewhat peculiar that someone so familiar with marine terminology can deny the existence of an imbalance. Maybe it is only a matter of vocabulary.

I am very familiar with the Thunder Bay area. This beautiful area in northwestern Ontario has a sea port. Maybe we have a hard time understanding each other because of the vocabulary. Some talk about financial pressures while others talk about fiscal imbalance.

If we look at the issue from a marine point of view and take the example of a large ship, it might be easier to understand. I think that the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River would understand the notion of imbalance if it suddenly happened on a ship. Fiscal imbalance is like having a surplus of $60 billion on port side. We agree, these figures are indisputable. On starboard, the provinces would show a combined deficit of $68 billion. In other words, on one side of the ship, there is a load of $60 billion, and, on the other side, a load of $68 billion. Even the Prime Minister, who is very familiar with marine terminology, could understand that this is not an exaggeration, but rather an imbalance.

If this is true for a ship, it could apply here. A ship with such an imbalance would not be able to follow a straight course, even a Canada Steamship Lines' ship--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we use the ship analogy, the first thing we have to understand is we have to keep the ship afloat. I believe this infusion of funds, as ballast, will certainly do that, not only for Thunder Bay and the member's riding, but for the entire country.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to enter the debate.

In reading the motion, there are parts of it that I support. Maybe I will introduce an amendment because I do not like the first part dealing with the Prime Minister of Canada. The Prime Minister has indicated his generosity to the provinces, on behalf of all Canadians, in terms of the investments in health care and his commitment to deal with equalization.

However, I agree there is a fiscal imbalance. I was quite happy on October 7 when a motion was unanimously adopted by the House, which said that we fully respected the areas of jurisdiction of the provinces and that the financial pressures, some call the fiscal imbalance, would be alleviated. I was quite happy with that wording because some call a fiscal imbalance one thing and some call it another. I believe there is a fiscal imbalance, but I believe it is in favour of the provinces.

My colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, has been very clear on that point. If we look at the debt, if we look at the revenue sources and revenue streams, the provinces in aggregate have far more revenue sources and far less debt. For example, if we look at debt, it is 41% of GDP for the federal government and 22% of GDP for the provinces in aggregate. If we look at the revenues, the federal government on a net basis gets about $150 billion a year and the provinces get about $208 billion a year.

I find it is strangely ironic that the Bloc Québécois would bring forward this motion. As we all know, when the Bloc emerged in Quebec, it was not a have not province. However, it has become a have not province. Why? Because investment and economic activity have left Quebec. I was born and raised in Montreal. I am a member now in Toronto. We have been the beneficiaries of that. It is a sad commentary on our country and on our province of Quebec.

The percentage that goes to Quebec is $3 billion to $4 billion now, but at one point equalization payments got up to $5 billion out of $10 billion that was in existence at the time. Half of the equalization went to Quebec.

Yes, there is a fiscal imbalance and it is in favour of the provinces. They have all the revenues and we have the debt. In fact it is a good news story. This is where it gets very ironic in my judgment. People have talked about the surplus that came in at $9 billion as some kind of bad news story. With the $9 billion, we can pay down the debt. The federal government has paid down now something in the order of $55 billion, which is saving the taxpayers of the country $4.5 billion each year as an annuity going forward. However, we still have about $500 billion of debt on our books. The provinces have much less.

We should have a discussion and we should have a committee. We should look at and talk about the fiscal imbalance which is in favour of the provinces. I would be glad to participate in that.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

It being 6:15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, November 2 at 6:15 p.m.

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

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on October 15, I asked the health minister to act immediately to expand the hepatitis C compensation to victims outside the 1986 to 1990 group with the surplus that we now know exists in the hepatitis C compensation fund. If the minister does not intervene to expedite this process, hepatitis C victims who contracted that disease prior to 1986 or after 1990 will not see any money until some time long after June of next year when the next actuarial report is due to be released.

The answer from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health was completely unacceptable. He refused to admit that the fund has a surplus. He said that the minister was looking at the situation with the other partners, and that expanding the fund to cover pre-1986 and post-1990 victims was only one of several options being considered for this money.

On October 18, the minister said the same thing, although this time he gave more explanation about the nature of his stalling tactics. He listed three different consultation processes that he intends to pursue before making a decision. This is an extremely demoralizing response for hepatitis C victims after the years of suffering and impoverishment that they have already faced.

I quote the minister who would only say that there was “potentially” an actuarial surplus in the fund. He said that the court would have to determine whether or not there was in fact an actuarial surplus. He then said that the federal government would have to work with the provinces and territories and would have to talk with the lawyers of the plaintiffs. Of course we know all that. That has to be done, but for the health minister to frame these points as a stalling tactic and to use them in that statement amounts to an evasion rather than a clear statement of commitment to address this issue very speedily for the sake of hepatitis C victims who are suffering miserably through no fault of their own.

Even while the health minister says that he is ready to reconsider the rules for access to that compensation fund, he has yet to give any details of the government's plan. It would be cruel to muse about this publicly with no intention of delivering. Given the government's record when it comes to doing right by hepatitis C victims, I am not going to be satisfied until details for compensation are made public. The government does have a history of talking big, particularly on this file, but delivering very little. I hope this is not one of those situations and that we get some resolve here this time.

It is rather shocking to hear the current health minister stalling like this. When he was attorney general in British Columbia in 1998 he supported opening the fund to all victims. How can he justify his about-face on this vital issue now?

We know from the annual audited reports that the hepatitis C compensation fund sits at $1.1 billion. Last year the fund earned $56 million more in revenue than it actually distributed on claims and expenses. Instead of the 20,000-plus victims, only about 5,000 actual victims have come forward from the 1986 to 1990 group who currently qualify for compensation from that fund. The health minister is refusing to admit that there is a huge surplus in the fund. Can he explain to the House why he does not trust the government approved auditors on this matter?

What hepatitis C victims need now is a health minister who understands basic math. There is a huge audited surplus in the fund and it will grow larger every year. We ask that the government commit to expanding the coverage immediately. Do not mix fuzzy math with fuzzy politics and use it as an excuse to delay justice for Canada's forgotten hepatitis C victims.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, there has been much discussion about the rationale used by Canada's governments in deciding on a collaborative approach to hepatitis C assistance. It would be useful to review some of the events of the past to better understand why these years were so significant.

Although an antibody test for hepatitis C was not developed and put into use in the Canadian blood system until 1990, surrogate testing was used in the United States starting in 1986. Since the implementation of specific blood tests for hepatitis C in 1990, the Canadian blood system is considered to be as safe as can be. The 1986 to 1990 timeframe is significant and was the rationale for Canada's government to use in offering assistance.

This government has worked with the provinces and territories and, in March 1998, we announced a plan to provide financial assistance of $1.1 billion to the thousands of victims. By working collaboratively with the lawyers for the class action plaintiffs, we reached a settlement agreement which was approved by the Ontario, B.C. and Quebec courts in December 1999. This was only possible because the Government of Canada went to the provinces and to the claimants and proposed a solution.

Governments and lawyers for the class action plaintiffs reached a proposed settlement agreement and filed it to the three class action courts in June 1999. The settlement was approved by the courts in December and it was recognized that the settlement was far and equitable.

In March 2000, the courts appointed an administrator known as the Crawford Expertises Canada Inc./The Garden City Group. As of October 1, 2004, the latest date that figures are available, 9,424 claims have been approved and slightly more than $387 million have been paid out.

The joint committee, a group of lawyers appointed by the courts to supervise administration of the settlement agreement, has assured the Minister of Health that it is taking every available step to review claims efficiently and promptly.

The latest date that figures were reported was March 2004. The $865 million reported does not belong to the government. It belongs to the beneficiaries of the trust fund established by the courts under the settlement agreement concerning victims infected between 1986 and 1990.

The question as to whether there is a surplus in the trust fund can only be determined by the courts, which they will look into in June, pursuant to the terms of the settlement. Payments to claimants out of the fund may continue for as much as 70 years, either to new claimants who have until 2010 to apply or for new or continuing payments to those who have already qualified.

Some claimants will be receiving loss of income payments for a very long time from the settlement agreement. Other claimants can make claims for additional compensation as their disease progresses.

I would remind members that the government's actions to assist people living with hepatitis C are not limited to the settlement compensation. Following the compensation announcement, the Government of Canada received representation from individuals infected outside the window period of 1986 to 1990. The Minister of Health listened to their concerns and, as a result, in September 1988, a $525 million strategy was announced to assist all individuals infected with or affected by hepatitis C.

As part of this initiative, the government has been transferring to the provinces and territories up to $300 million for appropriate hepatitis C treatment and services for all those who contracted hepatitis C through the blood system outside of the window period.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, $1.1 billion is sitting in the compensation fund for victims of hepatitis C from tainted blood and it is not being used. Meanwhile, more than $250,000 a month is being spent on administrative costs alone.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Health passed a motion last week calling on the federal government to extend compensation to all those who contracted hepatitis C through tainted blood. The motion was introduced by the Conservative member for Yellowhead, the vice-chair of the committee, and the motion passed unanimously.

The motion passed by the health committee reads as follows:

That this Committee, in recognition of the recommendation of the Krever Inquiry and the large surplus in the federal Hepatitis C compensation fund, urge the government to extend compensation to all those who contracted Hepatitis C from tainted blood.

The committee is sending a pretty strong message to the government. With over $1 billion left in the fund and far fewer victims than first estimated, the excuses are running out. There is more than enough money to compensate all of the victims.

Would the minister confirm that he will act immediately--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want the member opposite to confuse the issue with facts, but sometimes it is necessary to look at the facts.

First, and I will repeat, these funds are not government funds. The funds put in this trust agreement belong to the plaintiffs. They are administered by the three courts. The courts have found a company to do the day to day work which, of course, has an administrative charge.

This is an actuarial surplus. It is not the balance in the account. It is how much more money is in the account to meet future needs than what will be the future costs that will be determined to be the actuarial surplus. It will be presented by the administrators of the fund to the courts. The courts will determine if there is a surplus and how much of a surplus there is based on the information that is presented.

Based on the agreement, we can then look at how to best use the surplus, assuming, and I certainly hope that there is some--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety refused to say how much the firearms program would cost to fully implement and how much it would cost to maintain. Twenty-five times we have asked this same question and 25 times the government has failed to answer. That is two years of keeping Parliament in the dark, the very thing the Auditor General chastized the government for in her December 2002 report.

I also asked the minister why she was pumping $120 million into a completely ineffective firearms program this year while more than 1,700 DNA cases were backlogged in the RCMP forensic laboratories. She also ducked that question. I asked her a more pointed question in committee yesterday but rather than answer the question she said that she would answer my question in writing.

Tonight I am going to give the minister another chance to answer my question in Parliament.

Our sources in the RCMP tell us that in the year 2000 the DNA case backlog in the RCMP forensic laboratory reached a low of 330 cases, but on October 2003 the backlog had risen to more than twice that, 683 cases. In the last year alone, this backlog has risen from 683 to 1,733 cases, doubling once again.

The minister's new department is not improving public safety. She is letting criminal suspects roam free because she will not give the RCMP labs enough money to analyze DNA samples. The 2004-05 evidence recovery and biology services business plan called for increased investment by the RCMP in order to deal with the DNA backlog situation but its request was denied. Why?

In July the RCMP issued a news release announcing the following, “On June 29, 2004 the DNA data bank recorded its 2,000th successful DNA match linking crime scenes to convicted offenders”.

All parliamentarians need to know what percentage of the 1,733 backlog DNA cases in the RCMP forensic laboratories would result in a successful match with a convicted offender or, in other words, how many criminals are walking around free because of the lack of adequate funding for the RCMP labs by the Deputy Prime Minister and her government?

Given the DNA data bank's fantastic success rate of matching convicted criminals to crime scenes and the gun registry's fantastic flop, it defies all logic to starve the RCMP forensic labs while the flop of a firearms program eats up $120 million a year.

The minister has her priorities all wrong. She has dolled out hard-earned taxpayer dollars based on her party's political priorities, not public safety priorities. After nine years $1 billion has been wasted on the Liberal's firearms fiasco. One can just imagine what the police could have done with $1 billion to fight real crime and chase real criminals.

Instead of tracking 310,000 criminals with outstanding Canada-wide and province-wide warrants, and instead of tracking 176,000 convicted criminals with firearms prohibition orders against them, and 37,000 dangerous persons with court restraining orders, the minister and the Liberal government have wasted $1 billion tracking and harassing 2,000,000 completely innocent hunters and recreational shooters.

My question for the 26th time is: How much will it cost to fully implement the program?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, in the member's question in question period he talked about the DNA in the supplementary, but I am prepared to deal with the question around the firearms registry.

The first question put forward by the hon. member concerns the licence renewal process that was approved by Parliament in 2003.

The second question deals with the costs of the program reported to Parliament in October 2004. The hon. member knows that firearm licences must be renewed every five years.

More than 50% of the 1.98 million firearms licences were issued within a 12 month period preceding the legislated deadline of December 31, 2000 that required firearm owners and users to be licensed under the Firearms Act.

Bill C-10A, originally tabled in the House as Bill C-15 in 2001, received royal assent in May 2003. It amended the Firearms Act to provide measures for the effective administration of the firearms program. Included in the legislation was a provision to allow a one-time extension of some possession-only licences, to solve the peak in workload, every five years for licence renewals, thus allowing for a more even yearly distribution of licence renewals.

Parliament passed this provision, and the evening out of the workload has been supported by stakeholders consulted on Bill C-10A in the fall of 2003. It also got the support of provincial firearm regulators, because this has created a stable operational environment while ensuring quality services and public security.

Workload levelling is a much used and effective business practice that allows a more even distribution of work over an extended period. This eliminates increased costs and staff for processing an unusual peak in workload. Workload levelling also allows the program to continue to meet application processing standards thus ensuring firearm owners receive their renewal before their existing licence expires.

The hon. member again has a question pertaining to the costs of the Canadian firearms program. Full program costing is reported in the Canada Firearms Centre's “Report On Plans and Priorities” and in its “Departmental Performance Report” which were tabled in Parliament in October 2004.

As reported in the 2003-04 Canada Firearms Centre's “Departmental Performance Report”, the full federal cost of the firearms program of $934.4 million includes: the cost of information technology; the licensing of all firearm owners; the registration of all firearms; the indirect costs to other government departments; and transfer payments to the provinces.

It is my pleasure to remind members of the House that the Canada Firearms Centre remains committed to providing Canadians with efficient and cost effective services. Workload levelling is but one of the many measures that has been taken to allow us to meet that commitment.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I did not get any answer with regard to what I asked about the DNA registry, and that is regrettable. I hope I will get an answer some time.

As the member opposite has just explained, this is really an example of how poorly thought out this entire program was. Right from the get-go the government was told that it was completely unworkable and that the costs would spiral out of control. The government claimed it could do it for a cost to taxpayers of $2 million. The Auditor General said that it went 500 times over budget and we are still paying about 60 times more per year than the total cost was supposed to be.

What are we getting for that? Millions of guns are still unregistered. More than 400,000 firearms licence holders have not registered their gun. More than 300,000 registered handgun owners still have to re-register their handguns. Five million guns in the registry are still not verified. The police cannot even use the information.

This has to be one of the biggest boondoggles the government has ever come up with. When will it finally back off? This latest thing is just more evidence.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not having an answer on the DNA, but that was in the supplementary and perhaps I can get back to the member on that.

With respect to firearms licensing, as it often is in life, people leave things to the last minute. Sometimes they do that because they are not very happy when they have to license a firearm. What we had was a peak load of registrations. On a five year renewal basis that would mean we would have a peak every five years. The firearms centre would have to staff up and then staff down, pay overtime, et cetera. This makes eminent sense and was adopted by this Parliament.

I would like to talk about some of the good things that are happening with the firearms registry. For example, it has now registered roughly seven million firearms. That is a good number of registered firearms, but more important , there are about 20,000 inquiries on the firearms registry by police every week.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

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 6.35 p.m.)