Loyola Hearn

[Privilege, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have never heard such a feeble attempt to excuse a minister from misleading a committee and the House. Not only were the minister and the officials accused of providing incorrect information, a court, a judge in a court of this land, said that the minister and the officials misled the committee and consequently the House.

There is a quick resolution to this. The House leader for the governing party talks about bringing closure and finality to the issue. How to do it was suggested by the hon. member for Calgary--Nose Hill. The minister either corrects or apologizes. It is simple.

This is just another blatant abuse of power. It is a complete and utter disrespect for Parliament. There is a way to bring finality to the issue and it is simply an apology or a correction from the minister involved.

[Supply, May 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand to support the resolution put forth by the Alliance Party.

The people of Taiwan, through their Canadian representatives, have been asking all parties to support their request for observer status at the World Health Organization. As the day progresses, Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find within all parties support for that request, and in fact I would think perhaps on this side collectively, unanimous support for that request. Certainly within the governing party you will find a number of individuals who are solid in their support for making sure that Taiwan does receive observer status.

The resolution itself, for the record, states:

That this House, acknowledging that health issues transcend political borders as seen with the recent outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), express its support--

All that is being asked for is support from the House. It continues:

--for the admission of Taiwan as an Observer to the World Health Organization and call upon the government to actively urge other member states and non-governmental organizations to support this goal.

Most people in this hon. House are very familiar with Taiwan. When we look at the fact that many other countries, much smaller, less populated, less productive and much smaller contributors to the world's economic scale, are members of the World Health Organization or have observer status, it seems there should be no reason at all why Taiwan would not be granted the same status and why we collectively here in the House should not support such a status.

All countries that are members of the United Nations may become members of the World Health Organization by accepting its constitution. Other countries may be admitted as members when their application has been approved by a simple majority vote of the World Health Assembly. Territories that are not responsible for the conduct of their international relations may be admitted as associate members when an application is made on their behalf by the member or other authority responsible for their international relations. Members of the World Health Organization are grouped according to regional distribution.

In 1996, Taiwan held its first direct presidential election. Although Taiwan was a charter member of the World Health Organization because it is a United Nations organization, Taiwan has been barred from participating in World Health Organization activities since 1972 when it lost its seat at the UN. With a population of 21 million, not a lot less than that of our own country of Canada, Taiwan is 14th in the world in trade, 12th in foreign investment and possesses the second highest foreign currency deposits in the world. It is a nation that contributes so significantly to world affairs and yet it has to fight to obtain observer status at the World Health Organization, which I believe is very unfair.

Taiwan has been trying for several years to gain observer status at the World Health Organization. This is supported by the United States. The United States House of Representatives most recently passed a bill, on March 11 of this year, supporting Taiwan's bid to participate as an observer at the World Health Organization. We see, then, that the United States is in support of its application.

Taiwan has a population larger than those of 148 member states of the United Nations. Further, Taiwan's population is equal to the sum of the 50 least populated member countries of the United Nations. It has been suggested that restricting Taiwan's being granted observer status is in direct violation of the universality principle expressed in the World Health Organization convention.

Taiwan's request is not without precedent. There are currently 30 different countries that have been granted observer status, and one ongoing organization, the Holy See or the Vatican. The PLO was also granted observer status in 1974, as was the Order of Malta in the 1950s.

The international community does not consider Taiwan a country, which, I might add and I am sure I have a lot of support in adding, is very unfortunate. Therefore, in order to be granted an associate membership it would be necessary for China to make an application on Taiwan's behalf. The likelihood of this happening is extremely remote given the present-day relationship between China and Taiwan, which we hope will improve. We have seen some improvements and I think a lot of the credit should go to the leadership shown by Taiwan.

The World Health Organization has issued a travel advisory for all of Taiwan in light of the new cases of SARS. Just today we heard that 72 deaths, I believe, have occurred in Taiwan. Over just the last few weeks alone, as of May 17, Taiwan's situation had worsened to the point of 274 reported cases and 35 deaths. A few days later on May 20, the situation had increased to 383, over 100 cases in three days and 52 deaths. Two days later on May 22, the situation had increased again to 483 cases, an increase of 100 in two days and 60 deaths. I understand now it is 72 deaths and certainly more reported cases.

When we see that SARS in particular, which is a real challenge to the medical world and to the world generally, is becoming so devastating to Taiwan and when we see the research capabilities in the medical field of a country such as Taiwan, what a tremendous contribution this country could play as an observer, or actually we would hope a full member eventually but certainly as an observer in this case, to the World Health Organization.

We could go on and laud Taiwan for how far it has come, for its tremendous contribution to the world and for its ability to make a contribution, not to the world generally, not to the world just economically, not to the world in relation to innovation, but certainly also in the medical field. It is certainly with pleasure, as I have said, that we support this resolution. We ask all members in the House to support the resolution, because in light of the support Taiwan has received, including that of our friends and neighbours to the south, the United States, it would be great if we would make acceptance of this resolution unanimous.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, May 16th, 2003]

It did not mention fisheries.

[Fisheries, May 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, what an interesting phrase at this time.

It now appears that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will cut funding to the Canadian Responsible Fisheries Board. Briefing notes from the department indicate the impact for the ministry include: a departmental flip flop on responsible fisheries, and abandonment of the fishing communities of Canada, particularly after the impact of the cod announcement.

Can the minister confirm if his department is planning to abandon the code for responsible fishing? Has funding been cut to that program?

[Fisheries, May 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council provides worthwhile, independent scientific information to the minister. At a recent meeting of the standing committee, the minister indicated that he might reconsider the future of the FRCC.

Will he tell the House whether he plans to eliminate the FRCC or otherwise interfere and downgrade that very worthwhile institution?

[Auberge Grand-Mère, May 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the minister also said, “All the concerns have been examined and put to rest”. He just reiterated that. The House now knows that the affidavit sworn by the RCMP in the National Post case contained only half the testimony of the bank official responsible for the Auberge loan. It left out the categoric testimony that the only reason the loan was approved was because the Prime Minister intervened.

If everything had been examined, would the minister tell the House why the RCMP affidavit contained only half the evidence?

[Auberge Grand-Mère, May 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Industry told the House that the relevant facts in the Auberge Grand-Mère case have long since been disclosed and discussed. One relevant fact is that the page which disappeared from the bank files was the page on which the name of the Prime Minister's private company may have been recorded. This has been neither disclosed nor discussed in the House.

Is the minister then saying that this mysterious disappearance of key records had been discussed among ministers? Would he tell us whether that discussion included the role in the disappearance in the papers of Mr. Jean Carle?

[Fisheries, May 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, let me be a little more specific for the minister. Is the minister considering licence buyouts and the reopening of the southern gulf fishery?

[Fisheries, May 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is well aware by now of the upset in Newfoundland and Labrador about his recent decision. He is also well aware of the ultimatum given to him by his Liberal colleagues from the province. In light of that, will the minister tell the House how he plans to sweeten the offer to the province and is he reconsidering opening at least part of the fishery he recently closed down?

[Supply, May 13th, 2003]

Madam Chair, the only unfortunate thing is that these decision making procedures take a long time and some people suffering from diseases do not have a long time. I do not know in the interim if there is some provision for special cases. It might be something that should be looked at.

I will put two more questions and I will let the minister answer, but before I do, I want to say I appreciate that the minister was here tonight and stayed until the end, despite the fact that she had to be embarrassed by some of her own people. Let me say to her there is no need for it, because the minister can take the hard questions and she has done a very good job tonight. She should have been left alone by those people.

My first question is in relation to home care. I have always maintained that the best value government gets for the money it spends is in home care. As people become a little bit older, perhaps they cannot look after themselves any more and they need somebody to come in to look after them. As long as they are healthy enough, they should be able to stay in their own home as long as they want to stay there. If home care cannot be provided, then they go to an institution or maybe a hospital where the costs are astronomical, where they are away from their friends, family and surroundings and no one is happy. Quite often they cannot afford to have people come in to look after them.

Government will pay the $70,000 a year to put them in a nursing home, but will not pay $20,000 a year to keep them in their own homes where they are healthy, wealthy and wise, as they say, because they feel much more comfortable in their own surroundings. The whole home care provision in our country has to be looked at. It would be cheaper for the government all around.

On the final question I would like the minister's comment because this is a pet peeve of mine. I am not sure whether or not the minister's department has ever checked into the ratio of money spent on those who are poorly educated compared to those who are better educated and have a better lifestyle. I bring this up because it ties in with education. I have been trying to say, and I have heard others, including a couple of leadership candidates, say recently that we have to invest more in education.

We have a choice. We can spend a lot of money helping those who are sick, out of shape, in institutions, in penal institutions, living a lifestyle where they have a meagre income and cannot eat properly or we can educate them so that they contribute to society rather than depend on society to help them, not through their own fault of course. We should invest up front to make education affordable.

Many young people in this country, if they do not live near a university and they do not have parents who can subsidize their--