Debates of Nov. 1st, 2004

Criminal Code

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to press further on the concerns I first raised during question period on October 22 when I questioned the new Minister of Health about the deepening and increasing privatization of health care that is taking place across Canada. I also questioned him as to why on earth the federal government was siding with big tobacco in a law suit that began in B.C.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak further on the concerns that have been expressed to me by many constituents from East Vancouver and, indeed, from people across Vancouver and British Columbia about the state of our health care system.

We know that in September there was a meeting of first ministers around health care. A lot of people watched the live coverage and even the non-coverage as they sat and looked at the empty chairs. However a lot of people focused on that debate because they certainly saw it as one of the key issues facing our society, and that is the crisis in our public health care system.

One of the things that was very disturbing was the fact that there was barely a mention and certainly no resolution on how to deal with increasing privatization. It has been very disappointing to hear the new Minister of Health, who comes from B.C. and who was a former premier and former cabinet minister in the B.C. legislature, basically do zilch in speaking out and making it clear that the federal government will stop the privatization of our health care system.

In B.C. alone the situation is very alarming. For example, surgeries are now being planned to be contracted out to private facilities, while publicly funded and publicly operated operating rooms remain closed at facilities like Mount St. Joseph Hospital. We have four operating rooms operating very much under capacity at the B.C. Children's Hospital, most of them just sitting there idle, while at the same time, because of a backlog, the provincial government is saying that it wants to send surgeries out to private facilities.

At the first ministers conference there was a lot of debate and discussion around waiting lists, but there was no resolution on dealing with privatization and how by closing down public facilities and laying off public health care workers we have actually created the backlog in operating rooms in various procedures that were done previously through the publicly funded and publicly delivered system.

What we have seen the government walking into consciously is an environment where it has created the stage and created the situation where private health care interests can come forward and say that they have a deal for us. We have been very concerned about this.

We have also been concerned about the contracting out of the B.C. medical services plan and what violation that will pose for the privacy of Canadians and for people in B.C. under the U.S. patriot act. Again, we have seen nothing from this government to stop that.

We are waiting to see enforcement of the Canada Health Act. In fact, there was a coalition of public health care defenders, including CUPE , the Canadian Health Coalition, the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, CEP and the Council of Canadians who actually went to court to defend the accountability and transparency from the federal government on our public health care system.

To date, we have been terribly disappointed and alarmed at the lack of action taken by the Minister of Health. We wonder whether he changed his principles after he changed his political membership in a political party, because we have yet to see him take action to defend our public health care system.

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

Madam Speaker, on Friday, October 22 during question period, my hon. colleague, the member for Vancouver East, raised a question concerning the effects of the removal of section 6 of the Canada Health Act in 1995.

My hon. colleague alleges that the Canada Health Act was changed in 1995 to make privatization easier. She argues that the repeal of section 6 of the act results in greater privatization of health care services, more specific, home care services.

The amendments to the Health Care Act were essentially technical amendments that were required as a result of the introduction of the Canada health and social transfer. These amendments had no effect whatsoever on the scope of the Canada Health Act or its application. The Canada Health Act sets out the criteria and conditions that provincial and territorial health insurance plans must comply with to receive their full cash entitlements through federal health transfers.

The act identifies two types of health services: insured health services, which are subject to the criteria, conditions and extra billing and user charge provisions of the act; and extended health care services, which are subject only to the conditions of the act.

Extended health care services apply to nursing home services, adult residential care, home care services and ambulatory care services. Extended health care services have always been delivered by provinces and territories through a mixed system involving public and private providers.

Prior to the creation of the Canada health and social transfer under the act of 1977, the health transfer had consisted of cash contributions in support of insured health services previously referred to in section 5 of the Canada Health Act, and an amount payable in respect to extended health care services referred to in section 6 of the Canada Health Act.

The repeal of section 6 does not mean that extended health care services have been removed from the act. Quite the contrary, they continue to be part of the Canada Health Act in the same manner they have been since 1984.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to give a brief reply to the parliamentary secretary.

I would point out that the member is portraying the deletion of section 6 of the Canada Health Act in 1995 as simply some minor technical amendment. The reality is the deletion of that section has created and paved the way for the privatization of extended health and home care services.

Time and time again we have heard the Liberals deny in the House that they changed the Canada Health Act. We have an acknowledgement and an admission today that yes, indeed, section 6 was changed in 1995.

I come back to my main point. If the government has been so diligent in defending the Canada Health Act and if the government has been so diligent in ensuring the public delivery of public services with public funding, then why do we have this crisis? Why do we have an absolute violation of the principles of the Canada Health Act? Why do we have privatization? Why do we have waiting lists? Why do we have these for profit corporations banging down the door with apparently no punitive recourse from the federal government?

It is up to the federal government to enforce the Canada Health Act and--

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, first I want to reiterate that there was no change to the act. There were some minor adjustments because of the Canada health and social transfer. Extended health care has always been a mix of some private and some public delivery. The minister is committed to the principles of the Canada Health Act.

In the member's first intervention, she talked about the transition of the Minister of Health, who served in her party and ably in British Columbia in the provincial government. He was at the time a free agent. We recognized his talent, invited him to the big league and he joined. He is now performing very well.

I would recommend to the member and all members of the House that if they want to have such an opportunity, they should keep working very hard, but by no means should they swing at every pitch.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, the closing of nine regional RCMP detachments in regional Quebec can leave no one indifferent, with the exception of the Minister of Public Security herself. I must point out that the withdrawal of the RCMP leaves us with one less eye out against organized crime in the regions and is as well a cause of major concern to our fellow citizens in the rural areas involved.

The main justification for these closures according to the RCMP brass is rationalization of operations by centralizing personnel at strategic points, where there is a concentration of organized crime in a region, they tell us.

If they want to convince us of that theory, they will also have to convince all stakeholders in the nine regions, including nine MPs and mayors, who are not in the least sold on the justification for these RCMP decisions. There is, however, a very glaring example to the contrary, which I will explain.

In 1997, the federal government abolished the port police. The national police association warned the government about the potential increase in drug and arms trafficking at the ports, but to no avail. Today, the Minister of Transport is injecting $115 million to remedy this mistake by his predecessor.

And is the minister now prepared to commit the same error? They say that wisdom lies in learning from one's mistakes; where is this minister's wisdom?

On October 7, in response to the question asked by the member for Nova Centre, which was repeated by the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin this past Friday, the Minister of Public Safety told us that she had held broad based consultations, including the Sûreté du Québec. But where did these consultations take place, and with whom, exactly? Our sources say these consultations never took place. Moreover, they say that rural RCMP detachments had better success rates than urban ones in solving crimes.

The RCMP does not have the financial resources needed to adequately protect the public. I think that the problem lies in the following equation: no money equals no resources. The question answers itself.

The minister keeps saying that the number of RCMP officers in Quebec will remain the same. In fact, budgets will remain the same as well. So, how will we be able to pay the cost of these officers' travel to distant regions without adding new money for transportation expenses? The answer is simple: without the money to travel, the RCMP officers will no longer go out to the regions.

The minister is using Ontario as her model, but intelligence gathered electronically by the RCMP in Ontario reveals that traffickers will be going through northern Ontario, because there are no longer any police officers there. It is clear that closing RCMP detachments is synonymous with opening the doors to crime.

At one meeting between members of Parliament and representatives of the RCMP, we were told that, even if the officers were relocated to urban areas, they would maintain contact with their informants or informers. How can they do that, since they are no longer in the area? What will the informers do if they find out about a deal? Will they take the time to phone the police to inform them about the next shipment of drugs or weapons?

In order for the minister to avoid future blame for her error in judgment in closing these detachments, will she realize today that there must be an immediate moratorium on such closures?

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

Madam Speaker, let me assure you that the RCMP takes the security of all Canadians seriously. Over the past few years, we have all been faced with a rapidly changing environment which has been marked by the forces of globalization, technological change and the growing threat of terrorism and organized crime.

Public organizations have an obligation to manage their resources as effectively as possible. The unprecedented pace of change and the emergence of new pressures facing our society means that the RCMP must define what is required of policing in the 21st century and determine how to build and deliver it.

As a leading law enforcement organization, the RCMP performs regular reviews of its programs from coast to coast to ensure the most effective use of its resources.

With this in mind, the RCMP conducted an extensive study in consultation with RCMP employees in Quebec as well as municipal, provincial, national and international law enforcement partners.

This consultation, launched in 2002, is in keeping with the commitment made by the RCMP and the Government of Canada to provide exceptional federal policing services across Quebec.

As part of this wide-ranging consultative process, the RCMP has taken into account a number of considerations specific to Quebec, including geographic circumstances, border protection, coastal watch and the impact of criminal organizations in Quebec.

I would like to remind you that the mandate of the RCMP in Quebec is to enforce federal statutes, to investigate matters of national and international scope, and to fight organized crime and terrorism.

Since 2002, the face of policing in Quebec has undergone considerable transformation, with 174 municipal police forces amalgamating to create 44.

The Sûreté du Québec has also undergone a similar alignment exercise.

It has been important for the RCMP to also ensure its resources are adequately distributed across the province of Quebec, allowing the organization to focus on its priorities of organized crime and terrorism.

There will be no reduction of RCMP personnel in Quebec; resources are being redeployed to achieve greater operational efficiency and to meet strategic federal policing objectives in that province: fighting organized crime and terrorism.

As I indicated previously, a similar exercise conducted in Ontario in 1995, where resources were strategically redeployed, has enhanced the RCMP's operational capability to meet divisional and national priorities.

This decision serves a strategic purpose to provide enhanced policing services to our communities in Quebec.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to the speech by the hon. member opposite. It makes me realize they have not understood the issue.

Investigations have been made. Redeployment occurred in 1997 in Ontario. If they investigated, they would discover that it is not working. There is a problem. Centralizing the forces will not help combat organized crime. That is not the problem. The problem is that no police force remains in the rural areas, and this situation is causing another problem: now organized crime is concentrated in the rural areas.

We have done our homework and we were told that more investigations were done in rural areas than in big cities and most of them are successful. In other words, investigations done in smaller areas are better than investigations in a group of centres.

In that case, what we are asking for is a moratorium only and an investigation. The minister is saying that everyone consulted succeeded in having centralization, and so from then on there was centralization.

With this problem, we cannot say that people in the regions are going to be protected. They will not be protected because the police will not have the time to go the regions. Furthermore, they do not have the money to go there.

That said, I will ask the question again. Will a moratorium be declared so that these levels of the RCMP will be concentrated and do we know whether the RCMP will stay in the region and—

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has the floor.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to add that this was done in Ontario in 1995 and it is working very well. The difference is that in Ontario we do not say that the mayors and the member for Shefford are the experts. This is a recommendation from the RCMP. They are saying that when we have a certain critical mass, we can have, let us say, 15 officers attacking two areas of crime, organized crime and terrorism, rather than having a few officers trying to track down a number of different crimes. The RCMP advises that this is better for the safety of Quebecers and that it provides better law enforcement. I think we should take this as an operational decision of the RCMP and be guided by them. They are the experts in law enforcement.

With respect to the mayors of the eastern townships and the deputy from Shefford, I think we need to look to the RCMP. They are the ones making the recommendation and they are convinced that it will provide better security and law enforcement in the province of Quebec.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Rivière-Du-Loup—Montmagny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in this adjournment debate. On October 8, during oral question period, the leader of the Bloc Québécois pointed out that Bombardier had announced substantial job cuts because its clients could not guarantee that they would actually order existing models of aircraft.

On that day, the Bloc was sounding the alarm to the federal government that not only was there that situation, but that it was the federal government's responsibility, through the technology partnerships Canada program, to come to the aid of Bombardier by assuring buyers of attractive purchase terms through Export Development Canada.

Now it is November and we have not had any news as to whether or not the Canadian government will do anything to help out and protect jobs. We have been waiting for months, for years, because we have had significant negative signals.

For example, the technology partnerships Canada program is a good program in itself but it is not funded sufficiently well to meet the demand. These funds must be increased so that satisfactory research can be conducted.

Bombardier has plans to develop a plane with a passenger capacity of between 110 and 130. This is an unparalleled niche in the world market today. It is essential that the company have access to some form of research and development assistance in order to develop this plane.

We are talking about a maximum of $2 billion, $700 million of which should be provided by the governments. During the election campaign, the federal government announced major new investments in the Ontario auto industry, but it is unable to make a similar effort for the aerospace industry concentrated in Quebec.

Could the government go ahead and announce its policy as soon as possible and allow positive contributions to be made? It is essential that this research be conducted, and that this new aircraft be developed and built. This would help compensate in a timely fashion for the layoffs announced by Bombardier in connection with less popular models, thanks to this new model requested by international clients. What is lacking right now is adequate funding for research.

Many people are listening in today. At Bombardier, workers have received layoff notices, or are about to receive them. We believe that we cannot afford to lose this expertise. Will the federal government go ahead and announce as soon as possible its new aerospace policy, as well as the budget that will be allocated to it? Through Technology Partnerships Canada, this money would help ensure that the research necessary to develop this new aircraft is conducted. That is what we are expecting of the federal government.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, the Canadian aerospace industry is among the five largest in the world. It makes a significant contribution overall to the Canadian economy. Over 700 aerospace and defence firms across the country employ more than 78,000 people. Sales last year alone exceeded $20 billion.

Aerospace is much more than just one of Canada's traditional industries. It also is one of Canada's leading advanced technology exporters. The sector invested approximately $1 billion on research and development last year. Aerospace is the second largest investor in R and D in Canada and 4 of Canada's top 20 industrial R and D performers in last year's operations were aerospace and defence firms.

In recent years markets have been slow and competition is tight. This is placing demands and new pressures on our aerospace sector. The government is quite conscious of these new pressures and wishes to work with the industry to overcome those problems.

The Speech from the Throne is very clear: aerospace will remain a key industrial priority for the government. Further, the government has committed itself to developing a national strategy to help the sector strengthen its technology, leadership and position for future growth.

A national aerospace strategy can provide the broad context within which government can consider individual funding decisions. This broad context would include considerations such as changing international business climate, the economic impact and fiscal implications of support, skills development, trade policy and how individual investments fit into the overall direction of Canada's aerospace sector.

The Minister of Industry is moving quickly to develop the strategy. He will do so in collaboration with industry stakeholders and provincial counterparts. In doing so, we will build our impressive achievements to date and on in government programs such as sales, financing from Export Development Canada and research and development support such as are available from Technology Partnerships Canada.

I was very pleased to hear my colleague mention Technology Partnerships Canada because it is a very impressive program and one with which we have been extremely successful. The partnerships, which have been forged between industry and government, have produced good results for companies and for Canada. Bombardier's success with its family of regional jets is a case in point, but there are many examples in which a risk sharing investment by the government has resulted in new aerospace business for firms in Canada.

Speaking of Bombardier, the government also recognizes that this company is a cornerstone of Canada's aerospace industry. Bombardier's aerospace division is Canada's largest aerospace firm with sales of $11.3 billion, more than 50% of all Canadian aerospace output. The company employs some 13,000 workers in its facilities in Montreal, Toronto and North Bay, and relies on extensive supplier networks across the country. As we well know, Bombardier is currently considering a next generation aircraft larger than anything it has built before.

I would like to assure the hon. member that we are looking at the situation and moving forward as rapidly as possible.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Rivière-Du-Loup—Montmagny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that my colleague and I share the same opinion. The difference lies in how urgent we feel it is to do something.

The funds that have been devoted to aerospace by the technology partnerships program have decreased in recent years. We cannot stop encouraging and supporting technological research if we are to remain on the leading edge. There are offers being made to Bombardier at this time by certain U.S. states and foreign countries. We have not heard any response from Canada on this, and we need to know it as soon as possible.

The company itself is a multinational, with major investments in Quebec and in Canada. For those investments to bear fruit, however, the government must take action urgently. It is urgent for us to have an offer that is competitive with those from elsewhere, and to have it as quickly as possible, so that aerospace can continue to develop here.

Will there be a federal government offer forthcoming, in the next few days or weeks, so that these jobs can be created at home?

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would assure my hon. colleague that the minister is looking very carefully at all programs in TPC. We are moving forward and attempting to ensure that the research element in Canada is well supported.

There is absolutely no question that the Minister of Industry at this point in time is looking critically at what we can do to support the aerospace industry and move its agenda forward. I have no question that the TPC program has over the years created a tremendous amount of investment in research and development, not just in the aerospace industry but in the broad spectre of manufacturing and industries across Canada.

To get back to the Bombardier question at hand, we know how important that is. We are looking at many locations where future potential can be developed. We will be supportive of ensuring that Bombardier keeps its jobs in Canada, that Canadian workers have an opportunity to deal in that industry and we will move forward--

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

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

(The House adjourned at 7 p.m.)