House of Commons Hansard #36 of the 37th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.


Budget Implementation Act, 2004
Government Orders

1:20 p.m.


Réal Ménard Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC

Mr. Speaker, the situation is misunderstood and misconstrued, causing people to think that the federal government will be the one to protect health and social services.

Even the Canada Health Act, which as we all know includes the five principles of health care: comprehensiveness, universality, portability, transparency and a publicly funded system, has not stopped the federal government from drastically cutting its share of funding for health.

We must face the fact that, no matter what province we come from and no matter how the provinces provide public health services, not one province, from Newfoundland to British Colombia, has not suffered from the federal government's withdrawal from health.

Its withdrawal was not subject to negotiations. The provinces learned shortly before the budgets were tabled, if not when the budgets of successive finance ministers were read, that funding would be cut, with the resulting potential destabilization of provincial public funding. That is the first point.

Second, with regard to pharmacare, the national forum chaired by Prime Minister Chrétien tabled its report in 1997. It asked the federal government to consider helping to implement a national pharmacare program.

Quebec's health minister, Jean Rochon, was responsible for implementing such a program under the Parizeau and Bouchard governments. Our public pharmacare program is funded by users and the Quebec government. If this model can serve as an inspiration for English Canada, we would certainly support this, and all the better. However, in our opinion, it is not honourable, proper or truthful to say that the Parliament of Canada will protect health care because there is a Canada Health Act. The existence of this legislation has failed to stop the Liberals from drastically cutting health transfer payments since 1994.

Budget Implementation Act, 2004
Government Orders

1:25 p.m.


Mario Laframboise Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for his presentation on health. I would also like to take this opportunity to ask him a question.

In the latter part of his speech, he raised the issue of noise pollution in railway yards. This is more or less the Liberals' way of settling disputes, and it goes against common sense. It is the case in health: they are not investing the money needed to solve the problems. In a case as pathetic as that of noise pollution in railway yards, those who are listening to us must realize that no provincial law or municipal bylaw can regulate activities on federal land, and railways and railway yards are located on federal land.

Since Canada was first created, this Parliament has never adopted any standard to force railway companies to regulate themselves or to act reasonably as regards noise. This creates very stressful situations, and people get sick. The noise level generated by night work in railway yards is twice the level of the world standard.

I would like the hon. member to take this opportunity to explain more thoroughly why it was so important to give to the Canadian Transportation Agency the power to regulate the private industry, which is not subjected to any provincial or municipal standard on noise pollution.

Budget Implementation Act, 2004
Government Orders

1:25 p.m.


Réal Ménard Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. It takes me a little by surprise, but it is a very good question.

My colleague, who has served on the Standing Committee on Transport, knows that the CPR, to give only one example, acts like it was above the law.

For example, in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, in the centre of my riding, a rail line begins at Sherbrooke Street and goes right to the Port of Montreal, which is, of course, included in my riding. To meet the economic imperatives of just-in-time delivery of merchandise, and thus support economic development, the quality of life of our citizens has been given short shrift, so that that goods can be shipped around the clock.

That means that my constituents who live near the railway on Wurtele, Dézéry and Frontenac streets—even if it is 2 a.m. and they have to get up at 6—are exposed to noise, vibration, and noise pollution, not to mention the material damage that may occur. Dust and soot drift down all over. It is impossible to open the windows. I have heard some horror stories.

The railroad will not be expropriated, naturally, but Bill C-26 would have helped the parties learn to coexist. Houses will not be moved either. However, there has to be an agreement to end earlier.

I want to give an example. Trains are stopping in residential neighbourhoods and can be stationary for five or six minutes. They get turned off, with all the vibrations this means for the public. This is unacceptable. This harks back to the 19th century of Émile Zola. It is no longer acceptable in 2004 for such things to happen.

I know that, along with the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, we will make this an issue in the next federal election. We will not stop until the government takes appropriate action. At one time, the Liberals had a real government House leader. I know that the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell would have made Bill C-26 a priority. How is it that this bill has not been reinstated? It should have been. It would have been possible to come to an agreement rapidly, at least on this aspect of the bill.

If the government committed to introducing a bill in the next few days, I am certain that all the opposition parties would cooperate with all diligence to ensure its adoption, because this is a matter of quality of life and respect for individuals. Economic development cannot mean disrespect for individual quality of life.

Consequently, there is no word grand enough or powerful enough to express just how incensed the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel and I are to see that the government has abandoned people living along the railroad.

Budget Implementation Act, 2004
Government Orders

1:30 p.m.


Paul Szabo Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about health care.

Let me say first that I received an e-mail this morning which I found quite saddening. Members may have seen it. The five year old son of the member for Châteauguay, our colleague, has passed away. I want to note that, and I am sure that all members would agree that our hearts are with the family at this very difficult time.

I do not believe that the measure of the success of a country is its economic success. Rather, I believe that the measure is the health and well-being of its people. Health care has been the number one issue on the agenda of the Parliament of Canada and the Government of Canada ever since I can remember.

When I came here as a member in 1993, one of the first important initiatives undertaken was the establishment of the National Forum on Health. This process went on for a substantial amount of time. The best people, the best resources in the country, were consulting with Canadians, with the experts and with those who were familiar with the system as it existed and with the options and opportunities as they presented themselves in regard to continuing to improve our health care system in Canada.

I am very careful to remember that the ultimate position or opinion of the National Forum on Health was that there was enough money in the system. It did not say that we needed to have more money pumped in; it said that we were not spending it wisely, that we were not being efficient in using it. This led to a whole new range of thinking about how to get the resources that are within our health care system dedicated and focused to being flexible or responsive enough for the needs of Canadians.

That leads, then, to this whole discussion about federal and provincial responsibility and jurisdiction. The member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve raised it, I think, and he often talks about the provincial responsibilities and how the federal government seems to be just getting in the way. But there are certain things that transcend jurisdictional responsibilities. There are certain things that transcend partisanship. I believe that health care is one of those matters. As far as Canadians are concerned, there is only one payer of taxes, and that taxpayer does not care which level of government collects tax dollars. What they care about is that those dollars are being used wisely and effectively to provide the services that Canadians require.

As I mentioned earlier in a question and comment session, it is under the Canada Health Act that the principal responsibilities of the Government of Canada lie in terms of protecting and defending the principles of our health care system. Very briefly, I will describe them.

There is universality. This means that health care is going to be available to all in Canada regardless of whether they are citizens or have landed status or, indeed, are refugees. People who are on our shores are going to have accessibility. Health care is going to be universally available to all those who are in Canada. That is our value.

Comprehensiveness is the next item. This means that the full range of medically necessary services is going to be there for all those in Canada.

Finally, there is portability. This is an area that I have some concern about. Portability says that no matter where one is in Canada, no matter which province or territory, one will get health care service. I think that is very important.

Health care that is publicly funded and administered is the next principle. It means that in Canada we do not get an invoice every time we get health care services. It means that as we pay our taxes we are putting into the resources of the country so as to be able to sustain a health care system to provide for the needs of Canadians, or so we will have it when we need it.

As an example, 75% of the health care costs in the average person's lifetime will be incurred in the last two years of life. Imagine if we had a system which said that when we go for health care, we pay. If we are healthy throughout life, we are not going to incur many health care costs, but every one of us is going to eventually get to that point where we hit what is called the “resource intensity” requirements: the best specialists, the best medication and the best equipment. That is when expensive health care kicks in. It is usually in the last couple of years of life.

Who could afford it? It would bankrupt most people. That is exactly what happens in the United States for millions of Americans who do not have health insurance. They go bankrupt at that time when there are high resource intensity waits for the services required. The costs are prohibitive, sometimes as much as $20,000 or $30,000 a month in terms of the effective value of that service.

Having health care publicly funded means that the costs are smoothed out. It basically insulates all of us from the big hit of paying those costs for health care when we need it. It is there and is accessible.

The final point is accessibility. A country like ours is very diverse. We have a high population concentration in urban centres and a very high concentration of our population within 100 kilometres of the American border, but all Canadians do not live in urban centres and in proximity to the American border. Every Canadian must have reasonable accessibility.

I know that one of the biggest problems we have with the Canada Health Act right now is that some of the definitions are so broad and general. I really think that they have to be looked at. We need to define what is medically necessary and to have it understood. “Medically necessary” is not a defined term under the Canada Health Act--that I am aware of--but it should be so that Canadians' expectations with regard to what they get from the health care system are in there.

Members have heard and Canadians are aware that in certain provinces pharmaceuticals are being delisted. They are not being covered by pharmacare. In certain jurisdictions, medical and vision care are both being provided generally under health care to low income seniors, but in other communities they are not.

In New Brunswick and, I believe, in Labrador, seniors cannot get pharmacare unless they are collecting the guaranteed income supplement, which means they are the poorest of the poor.

That is not universal. That is not accessible. It certainly would not represent portability. I do not understand--and I guess we as parliamentarians have to ask these questions--how it is that these principles have been manipulated by some provinces in terms of trying to balance priorities on an individual basis.

When I came to Parliament, we had transfers to the provinces under two main envelopes. One was under the established program financing, which covered health care and post-secondary education. The second aspect was on the social programs under the Canada assistance plan, the CAP program, which was our contribution of 50¢ on the dollar with regard to matters such as welfare and social assistance.

That system was getting to be onerous. The funding amounts were provided in two forms. One was cash and one was what is called tax points. There are very few people in Canada and, I suspect, very few people in the House who totally understand tax points, other than the concept being that it is the taxing authority that has been transferred from the federal government to other jurisdictions to make up the cash.

What was happening when I became a member of Parliament was that the cash component was starting to shrink in terms of transfers. Let us look at what happens if the government does not have any cash, or if the taxing authority is basically transferring all of what is necessary. For instance, I think that in Quebec at the time the health care transfer with regard to the tax points actually was getting to the point where no cash had to be transferred. If the federal government has no cash to withhold in the event that a province would not respect the five principles of the Canada Health Act, which has happened from time to time, then there is no lever for the federal government to use to compel a province to provide the medically necessary services that are expected under the principles of the Canada Health Act.

That is when we changed to what is now called the Canada health and social transfer. I must admit there was a lot of confusion when we arrived at that point. Everyone said that it had been calculated a certain way in the first place. Now we have the Canada health and social transfer, and it is not three parcels but one. One has to wonder why that happened.

I remember looking at it somewhat carefully. It appeared to me that the principal advantage of bundling the transfers to provinces under one computation was that the cash transfer for post-secondary education and the Canada assistance plan components for social services was available to be withheld under the whole umbrella. Basically we could absolutely ensure that the federal government had cash that it could withhold in the event that the Canada Health Act was not being respected. It was a very interesting change in the policy.

Since then we have continued to debate about the existence or the non-existence of tax points and whether they are real. Some have even gone so far as to say that they have no value or they should not be included or that the federal government is only transferring so much cash, and why not just reverse it. I have a feeling many people would argue that the whole point of transferring tax points to the provinces was probably not one of the federal government's finest hours. This has led to a lot of confusion.

Notwithstanding that, we now find ourselves in a situation where health care continues to be the number one priority of Canadians, and Canadians should know it is the number one priority of their government.

Health care has been in every budget since I first came here in 1993. Every budget cannot deal with every aspect of each subject, but this has been a building situation. When we look at what has happened in terms of funding, whether it be one time specific in certain areas, such as MRI machines or for other specific purposes, the question again comes up about federal and provincial responsibility. I often wonder if we will ever get out of this dialogue about whether someone is encroaching in someone else's jurisdiction. I understand what the responsibilities of the provinces are under the Constitution. Now we have to ask ourselves if we are making some significant shifts in terms of the activities of the Government of Canada.

When we look at something we started right back in 1994, moneys from the federal government were put together in partnership with provincial and regional governments to do infrastructure programs such as sewers, bridges, roadways and the like. This was not federal jurisdiction per say.

If the country's infrastructure is eroding, a number of consequential and detrimental things will occur. If the economy is not good, then generally people are not working. If people are not working, chances are that is affecting the safety and security of their communities. Chances are that is affecting their ability to have a job.

In our society everything we do plays a role. I would argue, as I said at the beginning of my speech, that the measure of success of a country is not the measure of success economically. Rather it is the measure of the health and well-being of its people. Any government has to look at the condition of its people, particularly as it relates to their health.

Now we are talking about conditional funding. For instance, if the federal government were to inject another $2 billion, which is the number suggested, that is conditional funding. Two areas have come up with regard to this, and that is pharmacare and home care.

I recently did some work on a seniors project. I tabled 17 motions in the House on February 2 dealing with seniors. The most startling one to some was my proposal for a guaranteed annual income for seniors. Seniors' poverty is an important issue that has not been given the priority or attention it should be given.

Among the other motions I put forward, two had to do with pharmacare and home care. On the pharmacare side, as I mentioned earlier, there is an inconsistency across the country in the availability and accessibility of pharmaceuticals. This is so important. If we put it in context, we spend as much in health care costs on pharmaceuticals as we do on doctors and nurses. Doctors and nurses and drugs in our health system are the same. That is how our health care system has moved. Therefore, we have to reassess as we get these dramatic shifts.

I know it is extremely important that people understand how much it costs with regard to pharmaceuticals and whether there is a system in place to ensure that the pharmaceutical industry is meeting the needs and that we are getting, as the Auditor General reminds us of, value for money. I am not so sure sometimes when I see the new and improved or the change in a formula which has basically no effective change in the value of a drug.

The other part has to do with home care. I am really concerned about the situation that many families find themselves in these days under the umbrella of our health care system delivered by the provinces. It has to do with home care, specifically from the standpoint that we understand people have circumstances where they do not need full nursing home care, medical care and attention on a constant basis, but that it might be limited to as little as a couple of hours a day.

When we think about it, it is either full time care in a nursing home, which can cost somewhere around $2,000 to $3,000 a month to be in a regulated nursing home environment, as opposed to a couple of hours a day. What happens to all the people who need more than two hours a day, who have supervisory requirements where they can get themselves in trouble or they need help to do some basic things but it is not constant? There is an enormous hole in the middle of the home care system which can only be filled by who? By family members. It usually turns out that it is family members and it is more often than not women versus men. Women are being required to withdraw from the paid labour force to provide care for an infirm or disabled elderly loved one.

How is it that we can provide important subsidies to the nursing home industry, yet we cannot provide the same effective level of subsidies to care givers?

About three or four years ago Motion No. 30 passed in this place to establish a care giver tax credit. That was my motion. It was only a modest amount of about $500, but we now have in the Income Tax Act a care giver benefit.

I believe an important contribution we can make to the health and well-being of Canadians, particularly our seniors, is to look seriously at enhancing and enriching the care giver credit so our seniors will be able to have the care, if necessary, beyond what home care can provide. At the same time we cannot continue to shift the burden on to families to provide the care that they need.

What we have to do is look very carefully at our home care model and in fact tie some funding to home care so we can provide some flexible options for families in that middle, between full time nursing home care and a couple of ours a day.

Budget Implementation Act, 2004
Government Orders

1:45 p.m.


Peter Stoffer Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, it sounded like the hon. member has all the answers to the problems. As his party is in government, it should do it.

First, the Conservative government brought in the drug patent legislation that caused drug prices to triple. What did the Liberal government say in 1993? It said that it would change it. I remember Mr. Tobin saying that it was an outrage and that it would cost families far too much money for drugs and prescriptions. Instead of changing it, the government enhanced the legislation to give pharmaceutical companies the patent protection for an even longer time.

If the member is really serious about the cost of pharmacare, his party should change it.

My second comment is about caregivers. I brought a bill forth in 1998 to allow caregivers, those people who care for people in a palliative care situation, be it a child or another relative, to take a year off work with job protection and employment insurance while they provided care for that person, whether it was palliative care or serious rehabilitative care. In the case of a couple having a child, one of the parents can take a year off work on maternity or paternity leave. The government, kicking and screaming, put in a six week program this year, for which we are grateful. At least it is a start. Will the hon. member at least admit that it goes nowhere near enough?

In the Ottawa Citizen today there is a story about Sharon Ruth and her daughter. It is a classic example of a woman who is not working outside the home but needs assistance right now so she can care for her daughter who has cancer, and I hope her daughter will recover from it.

Those are just a few of the points I have for the hon. member. I would interested in hearing his comments.

Budget Implementation Act, 2004
Government Orders

1:50 p.m.


Paul Szabo Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, as the member is aware, we have had these debates for some time on pharmacare, on drugs and on patented medicine. This is an issue which keeps coming in and out of our lives. It dies down and then it comes back again.

If Parliament is concerned about the shifting burden of our health care system in pharmacare costs versus the human resources costs, we should debate this. Why is there no debate? Why are we not raising it? We have the tools to do this and get the facts on the table. Perhaps that is what should be done by way of either an emergency debate or possibly a motion from one of the parties for a day long debate within the House. I agree.

With regard to providing some sort of leave program for caregivers, that is precisely one of the motions I put forward on February 2. However, it would be under the employment insurance scheme and would provide full benefit. In addition, I added the proviso, and I think the member will agree, that during that period of time those caregivers would not be penalized in terms of their Canada pension plan credit. When they withdraw from the paid labour force, they lose the opportunity to continue to participate in earning pensionable years. I think that is really important. I agree very much though with regard to providing that relief to family members who provide care.

The member will recall that the motion I put forward was for those who provided care in the home to preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged or the disabled. It was a petition I gave in this place for about three years, which probably amounted to a couple of hundred times.

When families take care of their loved ones who are in need, that benefits us all. It relieves the stress and it relieves the utilization, the demand on the limited resources that we have. It may be a better model for some. I think the member is nodding that he agrees. We need to continue to build the flexibility and the options for Canadians to provide care to their family members when that care is necessary.

Budget Implementation Act, 2004
Government Orders

April 19th, 2004 / 1:50 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Grant Hill Macleod, AB

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is very interested in health care, and I give him credit for his speech. There are just two things on which I want to query him.

First, health care transfers have been reduced by his government by $25 billion over five years and only recently have those funds started to be put back in. I do not think that he should overlook that.

Second, he talks about the breaking of the Canada Health Act. One province breaks the portability provisions of the Canada Health Act every day and has since I was practising as a physician. People leave that province, go to another province and cannot be paid the physician's fee. That breaking of the Canada Health Act is something to which his government does not pay any attention. Why not?

Budget Implementation Act, 2004
Government Orders

1:55 p.m.


Paul Szabo Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the transfers, and I accept the member's numbers, Canada came through a very difficult period of time in the mid and late 1990s to get its fiscal house in order. There is no question that every Canadian had to step up, as did every government department and service.

However to get our fiscal house in order and to pay down $52 billion of debt, an additional $3 billion each and every year had to be put back. It means that restoration of that funding is occurring.

I do not disagree with the member. It would be nice to be able to do all things at all times but when we are faced with a situation that is unsustainable and that would put us in a hole that we could never get out of, it would not be fiscally responsible.

With regard to portability, the member is a medical doctor. The member, I am sure, is aware of many cases where one could argue that one of the pillars of the Canada Health Act has been violated by certain provinces. I would say that if pharmacare is not available to some Canadians unless they are collecting a guaranteed income supplement and in another province they can collect it no matter what their incomes, where is that in terms of the universality, accessibility or even the portability? If I move from one province to another and find out that service is no longer available, that is not portable either.

Maybe the member has again raised for us the importance of determining whether or not the Canada Health Act and its five principles are being defended to the greatest extent they should be and whether or not we have the definitions in there, for instance the definition of medically necessary, which I believe is not in the Canada Health Act but should be.

Budget Implementation Act, 2004
Government Orders

1:55 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Given the hour, I will proceed to statements by members. That way we will not have someone taking the floor for what might amount to one minute.

Canadian Cancer Society
Statements By Members

1:55 p.m.


Janko Peric Cambridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Cancer Society is a national organization of volunteers dedicated to the eradication of cancer and the enhancement of the quality of life of people living with cancer.

Each April during Daffodil Month, Canadian Cancer Society volunteers step up their efforts to raise donations and organize special events like the Great Ride 'n' Stride, which is also being held in my riding of Cambridge later this month.

The society is the largest charitable group supporting cancer research. This year alone, the society is contributing almost $49 million to leading edge projects across the country through its partnership with the National Cancer Institute of Canada.

I join all members of the House in encouraging Canadians to support their local Cancer Society volunteers and help eradicate cancer.

Holocaust Memorial Service
Statements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Lynne Yelich Blackstrap, SK

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the privilege of attending the first annual Holocaust Memorial Service at the Jewish Community Centre in Saskatoon, one of many events held to remember the six million people who perished during this awful time in our history and to salute those who survived.

Like others the world over, I wish there had never been a Holocaust to remember, but there was. With anti-Semitic crimes, like the destruction of a Jewish school library in Montreal still present today, the memorial's theme of “Strengthening Through Memory” is even more important.

Genocide, whether in the form of the Jewish Holocaust, or more recently in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, is a part of our history that must never be repeated.

Hate has no place in our society and I thank Congregation Agudas Israel for helping to promote that message.

Short Film Month
Statements By Members

2 p.m.


André Harvey Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC

Mr. Speaker, April is short film month at the Fernand-Séguin screening room of Cinémathèque québécoise. A selection of Quebec's best short films of last year are being shown there.

The short film has been a very fashionable format for some time. New digital technologies have had a profound impact on the popularity of this artistic genre and it did not take long for Quebec artists to grasp the potential of these new tools.

Short film month features documentary films and fiction from varying viewpoints and on topics ranging from ethics to the perception of reality.

The film library is also taking this opportunity to showcase the visionary Festival Regard sur le court métrage du Saguenay, which is regarded as a pioneer for having anticipated how important short film would become.

Pavillon des arts et de la culture de Coaticook
Statements By Members

2 p.m.


David Price Compton—Stanstead, QC

Mr. Speaker, on Friday I had the great pleasure of showing my constituents the relevance of the budget recently tabled by my colleague, the Minister of Finance.

On behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, I announced some good news to the people who work at the Pavillon des arts et de la culture de Coaticook.

As part of the Arts Presentation Canada program, the Minister of Canadian Heritage delivered on an announcement made in the most recent federal budget. Our government has provided $15,000 in financial support for this important cultural centre.

This money will help the Pavillon des arts et de la culture de Coaticook achieve its goal of familiarizing people from the region with the situations of francophones in other provinces and countries. A series of performances by artists from Ontario, New Brunswick, and British Columbia, as well as from France and Belgium, will be given at the pavilion.

National Volunteer Week
Statements By Members

2 p.m.


Roy Cullen Etobicoke North, ON

Mr. Speaker, in recognition of National Volunteer Week, I am very pleased to recognize some individuals who have had a very positive influence on my riding of Etobicoke North.

Mary Harker has played an active role in Etobicoke North for over 20 years. She is currently a member of the local Community Police Liaison Committee. She is also a member of the board of directors with the Rexdale Legal Clinic and she is involved with a local elementary school breakfast program.

Walter McIntyre is a local pastor who volunteers whenever needed. He initiated an organization called Hoops Unlimited, a basketball program for the youth of Etobicoke designed to keep them off the streets and away from drugs, gangs and violence.

Osman Ali is the executive director of the Somali-Canadian Association of Etobicoke. He works with his group to make Etobicoke North a better place for all residents.

Nidhan Singh Banwait is the president of the South Asian Seniors Association. He is helping to improve the quality of life for all.

Ernestine Von Marle operates a shelter in Etobicoke North for women who are escaping abusive situations.

I wish to recognize all the volunteers of Etobicoke North and I wish to thank them for their contributions.

Dalai Lama
Statements By Members

2 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Deepak Obhrai Calgary East, AB

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Canadians, it gives me great pleasure and honour to welcome to Canada His Holiness, the 14th Dalai Lama.

The Dalai Lama has inspired millions around the world with his teachings of non-violence and peaceful coexistence. The world recognized this great man's contribution to humanity by awarding him the Nobel Prize in 1989. I personally was exposed to the great teaching of the Tibetan monks through reading Dr. Lobsang Rampa's books.

The Dalai Lama is the political and spiritual leader of the Tibetan people. His struggle to bring dignity and human rights to his people must be recognized and supported.

The Dalai Lama has shown courage, compassion and, most of all, exemplary leadership through the hard times he and his people have faced and continue facing.

We are honoured with his presence in Canada.