Paddy Torsney

[Cultural Policy, October 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, at the fifth meeting of the International Network for Cultural Policy in Cape Town last week ministers of culture and senior officials from 21 countries expressed their support for an international instrument on cultural diversity.

Could the Minister of Canadian Heritage inform the House of the progress of those discussions and on the need for such an instrument?

[Canadian Forces, October 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to know that their awesome team of armed forces are able to work in the most effective way possible with our allies. Could the Minister of National Defence give the House concrete examples of the Canadian Forces' interoperability with our allies?

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, October 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It has come to my attention through the projected order of business and the notification that we all have on our desks that the House is debating Bill C-4, an act to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, put forward by the Minister of Natural Resources.

I am quite happy to have a debate on Kyoto, but we are supposed to be having a debate on the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. I am not sure how that relates to farm issues and Kyoto, although I certainly get the relationship between extreme weather and drought and the implications of Kyoto. Could get the House back on topic?

[Health Care System, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not sure if it is a point of order but I did want to identify that there have been a lot of people who have worked very hard this evening to make sure this debate took place. They include our table officers, our pages, a whole slew of people in the interpretation booths, keeping track of the recordings and turning on the microphones, and all our security guards.

I wanted to make sure they were duly thanked and that they would know that the whole House appreciates their fine work.

[Health Care System, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, as the parliamentary secretary will know, we in fact responded in our first mandate in office to a desire from the provinces to have more flexibility in investing in the areas they thought were important. The problem with that, of course, is that then we leave ourselves open to this attack that we are not funding the things that they thought we were supposed to be funding or that we have somehow restricted them. I do not think that is very fair.

I think that if there were more honesty and accountability and perhaps tied funding, as we have done with the equipment funding, Canadians would actually be able to track those dollars and see the benefits of their federal spending as well as of the provincial spending.

We do have to make sure that we have some flexibility in what is important. With the drug committee we have been to the Vancouver east side. There they are asking for different kinds of treatment in health interventions which would not necessarily be appropriate for my community or other communities across the country.

We have to make sure that the provinces have flexibility, but I do think we are going to have to look at tying some moneys to specific needs, as we did with the medical equipment fund and as I think we are going to have to do with treatment dollars, so that there is no excuse and Canadians looking for those services can find them in their own provinces.

That is another thing I am sure the parliamentary secretary has heard from constituents in his riding and other places. We need to separate the myth from the reality. All kinds of people have come to see me about health care but they have not had an intervention lately. By and large, the people who are having issues and who are receiving health care are extremely satisfied with the level of care, with the innovation that is taking place at the local level. By and large, they are extremely pleased.

Of course there are some people who have had difficult situations and they need to be addressed, but the people who seem to be most concerned or fearful that it has all gone to hell in a handbasket or that we need to introduce a private health care system are people who have not actually had any interaction with the health care system and in fact have bought into some of the myths.

I think the parliamentary secretary has hit on an important issue and that we perhaps very much do need to look at reconstructing those dollars and at tying the money to the services that Canadians have told us are important.

[Health Care System, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, I truly appreciate the opportunity this debate offers to join with our colleagues in reinforcing the government's commitment to quality health care. It has become a fundamental part of our national values and heritage.

I wish to focus my remarks on two issues this evening, the federal government's monetary contribution to health care and the need for new services which are important to my constituents, including home care and end of life care. I would have preferred to focus my speech primarily on those two issues, but the level of misinformation and hyperbole around federal spending on health care clouds the debate so completely that I am compelled to set the record straight.

There is no question that people are deeply concerned about the challenges, especially regarding financing, that confront our system. However, our government has a priority that is clear and concrete and that is to work through partnership with all levels of government and all stakeholders to provide Canadians in every region with the public health care system they need and rely on. It is not rhetoric. We have backed this priority with real action and with bottom line results. Almost 70% of all the new federal spending initiatives that we have undertaken since balancing the books have been in just three areas: health care, education and innovation.

Indeed, since the 1999 budget the federal government has announced increases in funding to the provinces under the CHST alone totalling $35 billion. These funds are available to the provinces to use as they see fit on health care, post-secondary education, social programs and early childhood development. Moreover, when we look at major federal cash transfers to the provinces, both the CHST and equalization money is expected to increase more than three times faster than the growth in federal revenues over the next five years.

Let us look at the facts for a second. The first ministers agreement of September 2000 on health care renewal and early childhood development provided $23.4 billion in increased funding to provinces and territories over five years: $21.1 billion for the Canada health and social transfer; and $2.3 billion for new targeted investments in medical equipment, primary care reform and new health information technologies. These investments in particular will lead to innovations in health care, increased support for doctors and nurses, the availability of new MRI machines and other medical equipment. By 2005-06, CHST cash will reach $21 billion, a $5.5 billion or 35% increase over last year's levels.

The cash transfers are only part of the story. It is only fair to include in the CHST calculation the value of the tax points that we ceded to the provinces at their request in 1977. This year the value of these tax points will reach an estimated $16.6 billion. If we take the two numbers together it means that the total value of the CHST to provinces this year, cash and tax points, amounts to $35 billion. Again, that is only part of the federal health care story. The federal government provides eight of the 10 provinces with equalization payments which they are free to allocate as they choose. Currently those payments exceed $10 billion.

Added together, federal transfers currently cover one-third of all provincial health care costs. We have to recognize that federal support for health care extends beyond transfers. This debate is not just about money. My constituents are concerned about what basket of services we are funding.

As part of her work with the provinces, I encourage the minister to work on improving what those services are that are available across the country. Home care and end of life care are of critical importance to my constituents.

On the home care front, anecdotal evidence shows that a lack of home care is definitely forcing people into hospitals, is straining families and is causing harm. I had a constituent who recently came to me. He had his two hours of home care per week cut. He needed help recently, but rather than having access to a home care nurse he was told to call an ambulance to deal with his nose bleed. He spent several days in hospital and cost everyone a lot of money. Frankly, I agree with his concern that a few hours per week would have prevented a whole series of other costs within our system and would have had a better impact on his quality of life.

On the hospice front, in Burlington we are extremely fortunate to have a wonderful new facility, the Carpenter Hospice, which recently opened its doors. It will provide terminally ill people with better end of life care than would ever be possible in a hospital. Our community identified a need, raised the funds, found the volunteers, found the donated land and built a truly beautiful facility, where I am confident excellent care will dramatically improve the lives of patients and their families.

Unfortunately, provincial health care dollars are not provided in these facilities and our national system did not plan for this kind of expenditure.

In our area, a recent Maclean's annual health report identified that the Mississauga-Brampton-Burlington area ranked in the top four communities in Canada offering the best health care services. It is not news to me or to the people of Burlington. Our Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital offers exemplary service and medical care, yet it faces the same challenges and struggles all hospitals face, exacerbated by a critical shortage of primary care physicians. Far too many families in my constituency do not have a family doctor. We have a physician recruitment team in my community. Northern and rural communities face this issue to an even larger extent.

Canadians want to know that the federal government is looking forward, that we are providing funding and support for all types of medical research. We need to advance research into AIDS, cancer, diabetes, ALS, Parkinson's and multiple sclerosis, to name just a few. The new CIHR system is funding, in unprecedented ways, research into these illnesses and others, and our new reproductive health legislation will ensure we are able to participate in important stem cell and genetic research to help unlock the mysteries of these diseases.

Finally, as chair of the Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs, I must say that we must do more to ensure that we are providing Canadians with education and health promotion so that they can make informed choices about risks related to occupations and recreations, about drugs and about participating in healthy activities. As well, I believe we need to ensure that there is available across this country much more treatment for those who are addicted to drugs and alcohol.

Canadians support the fundamental values of the Canada Health Act, the values of universality, portability and accessibility. The Romanow commission and its public consultations are very important to ensure that we find realistic solutions to the health care challenges that face us, that we have the flexibility in how and where health services are available, and that Canadians have decisions made that are realistic, rational and reflective of the reality of their lives. They want governments to show openness to new ideas and alternative delivery.

This debate and the work of our Minister of Health and her parliamentary secretary will ensure that we get the services and the products that all Canadians have come to know and love.

[Burlington, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, seven outstanding residents were recently honoured with civic recognition awards by the mayor of Burlington, Robert MacIsaac.

A founding member of the Burlington Art Centre, Elizabeth Pudsey was named Arts Person of the Year. Athletes of the Year were award-winning rower and equestrian, Roslyn MacLeod, and Samantha Magalas, a member of Team Canada's women's baseball team and Assumption High School's 2001 student of the year and female athlete of the year. Sportsperson of the Year was Jennifer Cheyne O'Brien, coach of Burlington's Ice Image synchronized skating teams.

Community service awards went to Ross Cotton and Lee Fiamelli. Mr. Cotton is an active volunteer with the Burlington Committee for the Physically Challenged while Mr. Fiamelli has volunteered at Brantwood Lifecare Centre for 40 years. Our Junior Citizen of the Year was Jayde Duncombe who is involved in many activities at Nelson High School and in our community.

I wish to congratulate Elizabeth, Roslyn, Samantha, Jennifer, Ross, Lee and Jayde. Their work enriches our community and our country. I wish to say, way to go Team Burlington.

[Burlington Economic Development Corporation, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Economic Developers Council of Ontario recognized the achievements of the Burlington Economic Development Corporation and its 2001 marketing efforts at the annual Ontario Marketing Awards dinner.

The Burlington Economic Development Corporation received the Award of Excellence and Best of Show Award in the special events category for its “Driving Burlington's High Performance Growth” dinner. Furthermore, the BEDC received the Award of Excellence in the Business Retention and Expansion category for its “Jobsburlington Recruitment Campaign”.

This campaign, developed in conjunction with HRDC, assisted local businesses by helping them attract the necessary skilled labour. This project's website received over a million hits during a 12 week period and filled 100 job vacancies. The success of this project has been outstanding.

I wish to congratulate BEDC. Way to go team Burlington.

[Lisa's Law, May 7th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Red Deer for putting forward this initiative. I think he knows that all of us are very supportive of children's issues and would hope that the bill would go to the justice and human rights committee for further study. As my colleague, the parliamentary secretary for justice, outlined, the bill is fairly specific in terms of which offences people must have committed before this act would take place. Maybe the list is not complete or maybe there are some other considerations.

I must say that I am particularly pleased to see that there is a provision in the discussion for consent of the custodial spouse or former spouse. I can imagine over the course of someone's time in jail that there would be changes to the children, not for the children who are direct victims but for children whose parents have committed an offence.

The essence of the bill is worthy. Even before the committee gets it through the process for consideration I would hope there is a possibility to work with the Correctional Service of Canada and with the Canadian judiciary to educate them so we are not forced to pass these kinds of laws. I hope they will use common sense in making decisions about custody and access to ensure that children's rights are being protected. It is children who have the right to grow up and have freedom and protection.

The bill which the member for Red Deer has brought forward is consistent with the government's commitment to protecting children. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice who worked for many years on those issues and I as vice-chair of the justice committee passed a lot of laws related to the protection of children in our first mandate, whether it was pornography, predators or sex tourism. We worked hard to make a lot of changes. Additional ideas are coming forward and that is important.

The other thing I would stress is the context for this discussion. Jail is supposed to be a place to rehabilitate people. It is supposed to be a place where people can come out as better individuals. Families play an important role in that process, both while the person is there and into the future. I would hope there would be some facility to ensure that for those children who do want contact, their wishes would be considered and that we would have common sense.

The member opposite wanted to move that the bill be brought forward to committee. I am not exactly sure on the timing but I would sit down with the member in support of the committee doing a thorough job in analyzing what other laws should be included in the legislation.

[Multiple Sclerosis Carnation Campaign, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, an estimated 50,000 Canadians have multiple sclerosis, a disease affecting the central nervous system. The Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada is making a difference for individuals and their families living with this disease.

Tomorrow, May 8, is the official start of the 2002 Multiple Sclerosis Carnation Campaign, and I am honoured once again to participate. A team of Ottawa MS chapter volunteers will join me just outside the Chamber tomorrow to help kick-start the campaign and present carnations to all members of the House.

Since 1976 the MS carnation campaign has raised over $30 million to help support MS research and provide services for people with MS and their families. On Mother's Day weekend thousands of volunteers in over 280 communities across Canada will be selling carnations to help find a cure for MS.

I encourage all members of the House to join me in supporting this wonderful campaign, and I ask all Canadians to wear a carnation tomorrow, buy carnations in their communities and support MS research. Together we will find a cure.