Svend Robinson

[Chief Actuary Act, May 15th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has just said that Canada would support Taiwan's membership if it is in accordance with WHO rules.

I pointed out to her that in fact observer status would be entirely in keeping with the rules of the World Health Organization. Indeed, there are a couple of entities, the Cook Islands and Niue which are not UN member states that are members. There are five other entities, the Holy See, Palestine, the Order of Malta, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies that are allowed to participate actively in the activities of the WHO by sending observers.

If the government were prepared to show some leadership and to listen to the all party recommendation of the foreign affairs committee, clearly it should be supporting observer status.

The parliamentary secretary made frankly the absurd statements that of course China has a veto because it is one of the five powers of the Security Council. This is the World Health Organization we are talking about, not the Security Council. There is no veto as such. I pointed out that it is Canada that is giving China a veto through consensus rules.

[Chief Actuary Act, May 15th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, on March 27 I rose in the House to ask a question of the Minister of Foreign Affairs concerning Canada's position with respect to the participation of Taiwan in the World Health Organization. I noted, in the fight against the SARS epidemic, that unfortunately Taiwan was unable to avail itself of the assistance of the World Health Organization at an early stage in this epidemic. Obviously the World Health Organization plays a very critical role in that.

I am calling today once again on the Government of Canada, with the upcoming meeting of the World Health Assembly in just a few days, to listen to the voices of parliamentarians from all parties in the House and to support the application of Taiwan for observer status in the World Health Organization.

I would note that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Commons voted, by a vote of 10-3, in support of Taiwan's bid for observer status in the World Health Organization. Members of all five parties represented in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs supported that motion. It was passed overwhelmingly. Yet the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Government of Canada showed total contempt for that decision and that recommendation by the committee.

I want to note as well that it is essential that Canada support Taiwan's application for observer status in the World Health Organization because, as it now stands, the Government of Canada has given a veto power to China to block the involvement of Taiwan in the World Health Organization. This is completely unacceptable. China has never exercised any authority whatsoever over Taiwan's health care system. Nor has China contributed its national budget in any way to the health needs of Taiwan.

Obviously China has long opposed Taiwan's World Health Organization application. Beyond that, it has actually obstructed the people of Taiwan. For example, in 1998 it prevented WHO experts from helping Taiwan combat a deadly outbreak of enterovirus. The following year, in 1999, when a massive earthquake struck central Taiwan killing over 2,400 people and leaving more than 10,000 injured, China helped block the shipment of emergency medical equipment.

Why is the Liberal Government of Canada prepared to give a veto to China? When we look at the SARS epidemic for example, China has handled this in an absolutely negligent way. It knew in November of last year about the possibility of this epidemic and yet did nothing whatsoever to combat it. Why should the people of Taiwan have to depend on China for their help?

I am calling today once again on the government to do the right thing, to support Taiwan's application, to stop this phony argument that it has to be an independent state when in fact there are a number of entities including the little Island of Niue which has a population of about 2,000 people or the Cook Islands which are members but not UN member states.

I am calling now on the government to explain exactly why the 23 million people of Taiwan should not have the opportunity, not only to avail themselves of the benefits of WHO membership, but also to contribute their tremendous expertise in the medical field or the scientific field, through the WHO, to the people of the world. The time is now. All parties have representatives supporting this. I urge the government to act to support Taiwan's observer status.

[Justice, May 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In November of 2001, days after a gay Vancouver man, Aaron Webster, was brutally beaten to death, every attorney general in Canada, including the minister's seatmate, who was then the minister of justice, agreed to support the inclusion of sexual orientation in Canada's hate propaganda laws.

Since gays and lesbians are the only major group that is targeted for violence and hate crimes that are excluded from these laws, and there was another apparent vicious gay bashing in Saint John just this week, does the minister support the inclusion of sexual orientation in Canada's hate propaganda laws? Yes or no.

[Supply, May 13th, 2003]

What about mental health?

[Supply, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, frankly Canadians are appalled at that answer. We do not need endless scientific research to know that these labels are misleading. That is the issue here. We know very well that these labels imply to those who buy those cigarettes, mild or light cigarettes and so on, that somehow they are less hazardous to health than other cigarettes. That is simply not the case. I wonder how much longer it will take for the minister to show the kind of leadership that Canadians are looking for on that.

My first question to the minister is with respect to the issue of the health council that was promised by the first ministers. We were told that it would be in place by May 5 which was over a week ago. Then the minister said that it would be in place by the end of this month. Now I have heard her say a few more weeks.

Could the minister clarify just what the timeline is on that? Just as important, would the minister clarify what her objective is with respect to the composition of this council? Will she assure the House and Canadians that this will not be a body that is dominated by government, but in fact will be a body that is independent of government that can ask the kind of tough questions that have to be asked, for example, around the issue of public funding going into private for profit health care? That is the first question regarding the powers of the health council, the timing of it, and what she sees as the key issues concerning the composition.

I will put the three other questions and then perhaps she can respond to those. The second question is, how does the minister respond to the damning critique this morning of the President of the Canadian Medical Association, Dr. Dana Hanson, with respect to the failure of the government to move ahead on a public health system? Dr. Hanson said:

It has become abundantly clear that Canada's public-health system is ill-prepared to deal with rapidly spreading infectious diseases, let alone the more insidious chronic diseases that lie at the root of most morbidity in our society.Canada's public-health and acute-care systems do not have sufficient disease surveillance capacity to adequately anticipate such events, nor the health-care workforce flexibility to respond to sudden health crises or calamitous occurrences

The auditor general said the same thing to the minister, as she knows, and her predecessor in 1999. How does the minister respond to these criticisms and what will she do to ensure that finally we see some federal leadership in the important issue of establishing a national public health strategy?

The area of medical marijuana is an area in which many Canadians are absolutely disgusted at the fact that the government has recognized that some Canadians in fact do need marijuana for medical purposes and that marijuana actually helps them to relieve the agony and the pain of some illnesses. Yet the government is in many cases forcing these people to obtain their marijuana illegally.

Does the minister not recognize that? I have been contacted by a number of Canadians on this issue. Permits have been issued to allow Canadians to grow their own marijuana for medical purposes, but in many cases people have to obtain the seeds or the plants illegally.

I want to ask the minister very specifically, why has the government not introduced legislation to allow Health Canada to produce safe and legal marijuana with standard THC content for patients that need it or at the very least to allow them to provide patients with seeds or plants so they can produce their own and not have to get it illegally?

The minister knows this is a concern. Some people using medical marijuana actually thought that the marijuana that was being grown in Manitoba would be made available to them. We were told that this was for research purposes, so that was not the case. Therefore they go to the back alleys and to illegal sources for that marijuana. Why is the government not acting on this important issue?

I have two other brief questions, one is on genetically engineered foods. I asked the minister on March 25, why will the government not move ahead and agree to the concerns of over 80% of Canadians who want mandatory labelling? They want to know what is in the food that they are eating. It is time the government stopped shilling for the biotech industry and allowed for mandatory labelling.

In her response to me about genetically engineered food and mandatory labelling this is what the minister said:

In fact, we have voluntary labelling requirements. We were working very hard with the Canadian General Standards Board to see if agreement could be reached around mandatory labelling provisions.

The minister is completely out to lunch there. She said they are working with a board to see if we can get mandatory labelling and that we already have voluntary labelling. Could the minister clear that up and give some indication that she knows what she is talking about on this issue and explain why it is that, given the collapse of the voluntary process and they are trying again this week, she will not move ahead on mandatory labelling?

Finally, there is mental health. It is a scandal that mental health is not a government priority. The minister will know that there are only 10 professionals within Health Canada dealing with the issue of mental health. That is an outrage. Mental health should be a far higher priority. The minister knows that mental health problems result in the second highest hospital admissions after heart diseases and stroke. It is the top billing of general practitioners.

I want to ask the minister, when will she start taking mental health concerns seriously and when will she work with the Canadian Mental Health Association to put mental health issues front and centre in the health agenda in this country. I look forward to the responses.

[Supply, May 13th, 2003]

Delay, delay, delay.

[Supply, May 13th, 2003]

Very well, Mr. Chair.

I want to wish the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve bon anniversaire.

The member raised the issue of tobacco and labelling of cigarette packages. I want to ask the minister just to follow up on that, a very specific question.

Some time ago the minister's predecessor, the now Minister of Industry, promised to move ahead on the issue of the deceptive labelling of cigarettes with labels like “light” and “mild”. That was a long time ago, in fact a number of years ago. I am wondering when the Minister of Health will finally honour that commitment and move ahead on this important question.

Why does she allow tobacco companies to continue to market in this deceptive and misleading way, labelling cigarettes as “mild” and “light”, when she knows that this has an adverse impact particularly on younger people? When will she finally take action to put an end to this deceptive marketing practice that her predecessor promised to act on a long time ago?

[Supply, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate this opportunity to ask the minister a number of questions. The challenge for me and my colleagues in the federal New Democrats was to decide on which particular issues we wanted to hone in on this evening because there are so many that we could raise in the course of 20 minutes. What I want to do is to put a number of issues on the table to the minister and then invite her to respond to them.

Before I get to some of the key questions I want to raise, I want to follow up on a question that my friend Mr. Ménard raised, and I believe that as we are in committee it is appropriate to use names.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 13th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I rise to participate in the debate on Bill C-17, recognizing, as my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre pointed out, that this is the government's third attempt to push legislation through the House that would pose a profound threat to some of the most basic civil liberties and the privacy of Canadians.

We know that the previous legislation introduced in November 2001 was Bill C-42. That bill was met with a huge amount of opposition, including from New Democrats. The government tried again in the spring of 2002 with Bill C-55.

Each time the government has introduced and reintroduced the legislation, it has taken a little off the edges perhaps, reduced the scope of the legislation and changed the time limit a bit, but it has not recognized the concerns of Canadians that the bill is an assault on some of the most basic and fundamental rights and freedoms and that privacy rights are at the heart of that concern.

I want to pay tribute to my colleague from Churchill, the federal New Democrat transport critic, who has done such an effective job, both in the committee and across the country, in helping to make Canadians more aware of what the dangers are of this bill.

It is not just this legislation. I think we have to look at this legislation in the context of a broader package of bills that the government has brought forward in the aftermath of September 11. Prime among those bills was Bill C-36, the so-called anti-terrorism legislation, which was far in excess of what was needed to respond to the genuine concerns in terms of fighting against terrorism.

Clearly that was a profoundly and fundamentally flawed bill that introduced unprecedented new powers. This bill, Bill C-17, is in much the same light.

The committee that studied Bill C-17 heard extensive evidence from a range of witnesses from across Canada. My colleagues who spoke earlier in the debate highlighted some of the points that were made. I would note for example the very compelling and eloquent evidence of the representatives of the Coalition of Muslim Organizations of Canada who pointed out that they were already concerned that members of their community were being targeted by law enforcement officers and others, and by border control officers both in Canada and in the United States, in the aftermath of September 11.

Certainly I, as a member of Parliament for Burnaby—Douglas, have heard from a number of constituents who were born in the Middle East, perhaps in Syria, in Iraq, in Iran or in other countries, who travelled to Canada, perhaps in some cases as young people, as children, and yet who have been treated in the most degrading and humiliating manner, being subjected to fingerprinting, photographing, treated basically as criminals. These people's only offence was that they happened to have been born in one of those countries.

That kind of racial profiling is totally unacceptable and yet Bill C-17 would open up the possibility for that to be expanded on a wide scale. That has been pointed out, as I said, by the Coalition of Muslim Organizations, both in its evidence to the committee and in the brief it submitted to the committee. Its brief particularly noted that the act would give sweeping discretion and authority to the Minister of Transport and to the heads of CSIS and the RCMP for significant abuses of power.

One of the greatest dangers of the bill is that there is a total lack of any effective parliamentary oversight. If we as parliamentarians were to vote for the legislation, we would be giving carte blanche to the Minister of Transport and to the heads of CSIS and the RCMP to exercise these very sweeping new powers.

The people from the Arab Canadian community, the Muslim community in particular who already have been targeted post-September 11, have rightly raised grave concerns about the impact this sweeping discretion in the bill would have. It would allow law enforcement agencies to basically go on fishing expeditions and violate the privacy of Canadians.

Parliament has agreed to the appointment of a privacy commissioner whose responsibility will be to report back to Parliament when there are attacks on the privacy rights of Canadians.

Privacy Commissioner George Radwanski appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport just a couple of months ago and said that the bill was a very dangerous piece of legislation. He put it in the context of other legislation and other powers that had already been passed. He noted for example the database of Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, what he called its big brother passenger database.

George Radwanski talked about the bill now before the House. He said:

Bill C-17, the Public Safety Act, will introduce a requirement that we, in effect, identify ourselves to the police when we travel. What I'm referring to here is the fact that when you board a flight these days, even a domestic flight, you have to show photo ID to the airline to confirm your identity.

The bill would make all passenger information available to CSIS and the RCMP, and it is not just about fighting terrorism. The legislation explicitly makes it clear that it goes far beyond that. It permits the RCMP to basically scan passenger information to seek a whole range of information that has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.

What this amounts to in effect, as Radwanski points out, is self-identification to the police by law-abiding Canadian citizens. As he asked, why not when we took train, a bus, rent a car or checked into a hotel? Once this dangerous principle is accepted, the police in effect are being given powers that I believe are both unconstitutional and violate squarely the provisions of the Charter of Rights.

One of the most respected constitutional lawyers in Canada, Clayton Ruby, appeared before the committee studying Bill C-17 and made that very point. He made the point that the bill was totally lacking in any meaningful safeguards. He said:

So you've taken a narrow kernel of constitutionality...and it may or may not be wise...Wisdom is not my concern here, but constitutionality is. The idea that you can take that information and pass it on, without time limits, without restraints, for general law enforcement purposes...

That is not terrorism but general law enforcement purposes. He went on to say:

--is simply unheard of in this country. We have never done it. Perhaps more importantly, free countries just generally do not do it. Democracies generally do not do this.

Yet, the Liberal government, first in Bill C-42, then in Bill C-55 and now in Bill C-17 is insisting that it take on those sweeping and dangerous new powers.

My colleague for Winnipeg North Centre made reference to Ken Rubin and his evidence before the committee. Certainly Ken Rubin is one of the most knowledgeable when it comes to issues of protection of privacy and respect for the fundamental human rights and civil liberties of Canadians.

Another group that has been outspoken and has taken a leadership role on the issue is a group from my own province, the province of British Columbia, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, one of the most active civil liberties groups in Canada.

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association as well appeared before the standing committee on Bill C-17. The association said that it was a draconian bill which was an attack on a free and democratic society. It pointed out that the bill went far beyond what was actually required to deal with the actual threat of terrorism. It said that much of what needed to be done did not need new legislation at all. In fact under the existing Emergencies Act, there are ample powers to respond to the kinds of concerns that have been raised.

There is always this tension between, on the one hand, the fundamental rights of Canadians as set out in the Charter of Rights and in a body of law and, on the other hand, this desire in the name of fighting terrorism to give sweeping new powers to the police. We as New Democrats argue that the government has failed terribly to achieve the correct balance.

I also want to note another provision of Bill C-17 and that is with respect to exclusion zones. There would be an order in council that would apply to an unknown area. We do not know exactly what that area would be, around Halifax, Esquimalt and Nanoose Bay. It could be used in other parts of the country as well, and we still do not know exactly what powers will be given with respect to these controlled access military zones of Bill C-55.

When it comes to Nanoose Bay, a growing number of British Columbians are saying that they do not want American nuclear powered submarines or American submarines that possibly carry nuclear weapons, in their waters. Yet the bill gives new powers to the government to provide for exclusion zones in these areas as well.

This legislation, Bill C-17, should be scrapped. The government should go back to the drawing board and recognize that we protect and value civil liberties in this country. We do not attack civil liberties and privacy as Bill C-17 does.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in this important debate on the budget implementation act, and to pay tribute initially to my colleague, the new finance spokesperson for the federal New Democrat caucus, the member for Winnipeg--North Centre, who has spoken eloquently on our perspective as New Democrats about the many shortcomings in the budget.

We put this in the context of a decade in which the federal Liberal government cut, hacked and slashed, not just to the bone but beyond, into some of the most basic programs of concern to Canadians. I want to give just a couple of examples of that.

I represent a constituency in British Columbia, the constituency of Burnaby--Douglas, in which we are proud to have a good number of co-op housing projects. In fact we have over 1,000 families who live in co-op housing. When the federal Liberals were elected in 1993, one of the first things the minister of finance did, who is now a candidate for the leadership of the Liberal Party and who is travelling across the country talking about what a great prime minister he will be, was to cut, eliminate and wipe out funding for co-op and social housing in Canada. It was absolutely shameful.

We had just come out of nine years of Conservative government, and I had the honour of representing Burnaby during those nine years. Even the Conservatives did not dare to wipe out and eliminate federal funding for co-op housing. The Liberal government did that. Now the Liberals say that we are back in the era of surpluses. Now that we have this era of surpluses and they have been able to find millions and millions of dollars in tax cuts for some of the wealthiest Canadians, how much money has the Liberal government found for co-op housing in the last budget? Not one cent, not a penny of funding for co-op housing, even though it has found money for its friends in the big corporations, for the wealthiest citizens in the country. I say shame on the former minister of finance, on the current Minister of Finance and on our Liberal government. They obviously do not care about access to affordable housing and to co-op housing.

Another concern which has been raised on many occasions by the former health critic of the federal New Democrats and by me, my colleagues and our new leader, Jack Layton, is the shortchanging of the Liberal government in implementing the vitally important recommendations of the Romanow commission on the future of health care.

Roy Romanow spent a year and a half travelling across Canada, consulting with Canadians, collecting the best possible evidence on how to save our public health care system. He came to the conclusion that not only did we have to make some major changes in how we delivered health care, including for example the provision of diagnostic services specifically under the provisions of the Canada Health Act, but he was also very clear about the harsh impact of the cuts by the former minister of finance on the quality of health care across this country.

Once again, we saw the former minister of finance slashing funding for public health care, downloading onto the provinces and territories. One would have hoped that the current Minister of Finance would have responded to the recommendations of Roy Romanow. Instead the Liberals fell far short in their response. They left a huge gap, as the first ministers pointed out in their accord, a gap which my colleague from Winnipeg--North Centre calls the Romanow gap, between what was needed, as identified as critically important by Roy Romanow as he travelled across the country, and what the Liberals actually delivered.

To ensure the long term sustainability of public health care, Romanow had agreed with us as New Democrats that the federal share of public health financing ought to be returned as quickly as possible to 25%. I pause here to say that 25% is not a radical or revolutionary target. It was not that many years ago when the federal government was committed to 50%, to half the costs of our medicare system.

Roy Romanow has suggested that we at least move up to 25%. He urged that be done over a three year time frame. What has the Liberal government respond to that important recommendation? Instead of returning to 25%, the Liberal budget, which we are now debating, raises the federal contribution to only 20%. Even then, it is not after three years; it is after five years. Basically there is a shortfall of some $5 billion. That is the Romanow gap, $5 billion of funding that is desperately needed to strengthen and improve the quality of our public health care system. The Liberal government, which is awash in surpluses and which can find money for tax cuts, cannot find money to fund the basic needs of our health care system.

The Liberals have created another gap in the budget. It is what we call the Romanow accountability gap, because there is a of lack of clarity with respect to the numbers on health. We do not know for example whether the money that has already committed, the $13.2 billion committed to improving health care under the 2000 health accord, is old money, new money, new old money or old new money. Nobody really knows.

There is also the issue of the tax points and transfers to the provinces and so on. On that Romanow was very clear. He said that transfers to the provinces should be completely on a cash basis. There should be no more of this jiggery-pokery of tax points.

One of the greatest threats to public health care is the decision by the Liberal government to allow profits to grow even higher within an increasingly privatized public health care system. One of the real concerns we have raised over and over again in the House, raised by my colleague, my predecessor as the health critic who is now our finance critic, the member for Halifax, and also by our national leader, is the grave threat to medicare, to public health care, as a result of the growing impact of private for profit care. Yet the Liberals are absolutely silent on this. There is not a single means of ensuring that the new money which goes into health care under the provisions of the recently signed first ministers health accord will not be going into private for profit delivery.

As the Canadian Health Coalition and many others, including the New Democrat premiers of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, have pointed out clearly, that is a grave threat to our medicare. It is a double whammy in a sense. As the federal Liberals seriously underfund public health care and allow the growth of private for profit health care, there will be growing pressure from the Canadian public who see the waiting lines in some cases getting longer because of federal cuts in funding. The pressure will be of course that if we cannot deliver within the public system, maybe, as the Canadian Alliance suggests, we should be move to a kind of two tier American style health care system. New Democrats will stand here and fight and fight against any move toward that kind of regressive two tier health care system.

The budget we are debating today, in a number of very important ways, moves us further down that very dangerous road which would lead to an erosion of our public health care system.

There are many other concerns as well in terms of the budget and shortfalls in funding. The whole issue of crime prevention, for example, is one that is of great concern in my community of Burnaby. I have had the privilege of meeting with a number of community policing groups. They have pointed out that, as a result of some significant cuts in funding in the crime prevention area, public safety is in some areas being jeopardized. The funding for crime prevention and for commercial crime has gone down as well.

We still do not have adequate funding from the federal government for public transit and a return of some of those hundreds of millions of dollars that we as British Columbians pour into the federal coffers on the one hand, yet we do not see a penny coming back to British Columbia to support public transit.

You are signaling that my time is coming to an end, Mr. Speaker, and I am just getting started. I know the member for Etobicoke--Lakeshore will rise to give us a stirring defence of the budget, and I look forward with great interest to her comments.

As New Democrats we say the budget falls far short in some of the most critical areas including health care, foreign aid, housing, the environment and of course a number of other areas such as culture.