Aileen Carroll

[Supply, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the opposition member's inquiry with regard to the workings of government in Canada.

It is frequently a difficult and onerous task to decision make. It falls upon the shoulders of government to do so. That essentially is the difference between governing and sitting on the opposition side of the House. We exhibit courage. Many times we have to make decisions that are difficult to make.

We do so knowing that we were chosen by the people of Canada to undertake that role, to be their government and to stand up for what we have to under extreme conditions. That is why we have members across the House who are free to shoot from every conceivable corner on every different item from which they wish to shoot, having no responsibility whatsoever for their partisan excess. That is the difference with governing.

[Supply, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. opposition member describes the situation in the territories that exists with regard to all people there who are ill.

The geography of the territories is such, and I know full well having visited there, that it is very difficult for anyone who is ill to cope with distance, time and conditions. This does not change under this set of circumstances but is in play day in day out and a part of the geography and difficulties of that land.

There has been a need to reduce transfer payments. While that was done it was stopped at $11.2 billion and restored to $12 billion. There are many different causes for the changes that have come about, many by the provincial and territorial decisions that have been made when addressing their systems of delivery. There are choices in that regard in addition to coping with all we have had to do to put our books in order.

I do not see anything particularly different in this set of circumstances other than what exists when relating to health care delivery in the territories.

[Supply, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time this afternoon with the hon. member for Mississauga West.

I have sat here day after day listening to attempts to make it seem like our government is working according to a purely legal approach, that it is just tossing people out on the street with nowhere to go for medical help.

I have observed that we have one of the very best health care systems in the world. I am sick and tired of partisan opportunists trying to make it appear as though our government has no social safety net, like we are an uncaring society.

It is especially galling coming from the opposition party whose bluebook advocates the gutting of the Canadian medicare system. Also galling is the myth that they have helped propagate, that Canada is behind other countries in terms of how we are dealing with hepatitis C.

I stand here today to ensure that the truth is not hidden within the lines of political rhetoric and partisan excess. Of course we have all heard of Ireland's approach to its own particular circumstances. For partisan critics Ireland's program is the one they highlight, the one against which all comparisons are made. However this single example is not one which can really be compared to our own. This is a different society with different structures, processes and pressures.

Ireland created a social program. While I do not know the extent to which it underwent consultation and consideration in that country, I do know that the full implications have not been fully discussed in our country.

How else do we compare ourselves to Ireland? Is its society so similar to our own? Is it the same size? Does it have the same democratic structure? Does it have the same history? Does our supreme court refer to Ireland to see what it has done on issues of law? The answer is a definite no.

When do we copy other countries' policies? Should we adopt, for instance, the U.S. style of health care as advocated by the opposition parties? Do we follow the human rights practices of other countries?

The answer to all of those questions is no. At the same time we should look to see where practices that do fit our own circumstances might exist.

If we have to consider other countries then I suggest we should take a look at what other major industrial countries have done. By that I mean the G-7 or the G-8 as we now include Russia. Among these countries nobody has followed Ireland's approach, nobody.

Let us look at Italy which has only given some very limited help to hemophiliacs. It has excluded everybody else. Can we really say the people abroad get the same kind of care we get here in Canada? That is really where it ends. Nobody else has even come close to providing the compensation offer that we are providing in Canada.

I think we should now make it a matter of record perhaps to compare it to some other countries. What has Russia done? Nothing that we know of. What has the United Kingdom done? It has defended itself in court and it is defending itself in court without acknowledging any type of responsibility outside that court. The same goes for France, Japan and Germany. Germany is conducting all legal claims through the court system.

Then there is the United States where we understand there are very few lawsuits. Why is that? That is because in 1986 it used surrogate testing on a national basis and we did not.

Today Canada has acted in a reasonable, responsible and clear way that even brought people into the picture who did not have lawsuits. We did so because that fits our rationale. Is that a purely legalistic approach? Has anybody else in the G-8 done this? No.

Let us go beyond those nations for the moment. Let us go beyond those countries against which Canada is most frequently compared and look at New Zealand. New Zealand does not compensate those with hepatitis C. It used to but only through its no fault system for accidents.

Now a large number of people have been left out by changes made in 1992. Why did they make changes that restrict access to this deteriorating program? They made them because New Zealand's no fault system is hurting as is its health care system. Is this an example we really want to follow?

People with hepatitis C are now left out of that system. They are suing their government. Should we be following the path of a nation that might eventually be following ours? Its newspapers report that Canada's approach might provide direction as to how it will deal with this problem. We should not be copying New Zealand. We should be learning from its experience.

Finally, there is Australia. Australia has settled its litigation out of court. We do not know exactly what has happened because there the agreement is secret. What we do know is that it settled cases that came about because it failed to use surrogate tests. This does sound awfully familiar.

We know it settled its cases without the Australian public knowing the conditions of the settlement. We also know it did not include people who had no court claim. It hedged its bets. Its rationale was purely legal. That is the approach that fits its public environment, culture and history. It suited its particular circumstances.

We have gone beyond that. Nobody can say that we took this legal approach because, as I said, our national approach to hepatitis C includes people who although they did not file a court case were affected at the same time as the rest. They were affected during a time when Canada's blood system should have performed better.

No other comparable country has included so many people as this country has. No other country has been as responsible as we have. That is the international record on this matter. Canada is a leader in its approach. It is not a blind follower.

[Youth, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to address the House on the importance of youth week, a celebration to which we should give the highest priority as Canadians.

We must invest in our young people if our society is to prosper. The best investment we can make as a government and as a society is in learning.

The Government of Canada believes that we must not only build a country on opportunity, jobs and growth but we must make sure we are building a society where every Canadian has equal access to those opportunities.

That is why the government introduced the youth opportunity employment strategy which helps Canada's young people make the transition from school to work, to getting that first job.

The important question of access was also behind the Prime Minister's announcement last fall of the Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation.

Through these measures, we are ensuring that Canada's young people have the opportunities to benefit from the great opportunity facing Canada—

[The Environment, April 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the ministers of energy and environment met last week in Toronto to approve a process to examine the impact, cost and benefits of implementing the Kyoto protocol. They agreed that climate change is an important global problem and that Canada must do its best to address it.

What is Canada doing to ensure it meets the commitment we made in Kyoto?

[Industry Canada, April 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that next Saturday, April 4, my riding, Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, and the riding of Simcoe North will host an Industry Canada information fair.

This is an excellent opportunity for Industry Canada to showcase its impressive array of products and services. Even more important, the fair offers one-stop shopping for small and medium size businesses to meet with the consultants and experts from Industry Canada. It is a good opportunity for them to check out the programs in one of the many booths at the fair, pick up program material and indeed discuss the issues with the Minister of Industry himself who will be honoured to be in our riding this weekend.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this debate is about the provisions in the recent budget, a budget that was made possible because the Government of Canada carried out the wishes of Canadians. Their message was loud and clear: eliminate the deficit and get our fiscal house in order.

We have accomplished that. Now Canadians will be the beneficiaries of the sacrifices they have made.

This budget commits 80% of new spending to two of Canadians' highest priorities: health care and more opportunities to improve our knowledge and skills in competitive workplaces.

I can think of no better way to direct our resources than to help young Canadians prepare for the 21st century. They are the leaders of tomorrow and we must do what we can to ensure they are able to meet the challenges of the knowledge based economy.

Last year we introduced our youth employment strategy which helps young Canadians make the often difficult transition between school and work. Through programs such as Youth Service Canada, Youth Internship Canada and Summer Career Placements we are helping our young men and young women to gain valuable work experience which will help equip them with the skills necessary for today's labour market.

We will build on these foundations with new measures that encourage youth employment and, equally important, we will ensure that all our youth are given the opportunity to fulfill their education potential.

As the Governor General said in last September's Speech from the Throne, there is no better way to mark the millennium than to invest in Canadian youth. That is why we announced the Canada millennium scholarship fund. Hon. members know that over 10 years the fund will award scholarships to more than 100,000 full and part time students and it will do so annually. It will begin with an initial endowment from the federal government of $2.5 billion.

I have heard concerns expressed that the millennium scholarships will infringe upon provincial jurisdiction and will duplicate provincial programs. I want to ensure hon. colleagues that this will not be the case. The Government of Canada fully recognizes that education falls under provincial jurisdiction, but our history shows that both the federal and provincial governments have worked together to assist Canadians who face financial barriers to learning.

The federal role goes back to the post World War II years when we first provided assistance to veterans who wished to complete their post-secondary education.

There is no need for apprehension regarding infringement. The millennium scholarships will be administered by a millennium scholarship foundation, an independent body which will be at arm's length from the federal government. Part of the foundation's mandate will be to consult with provincial authorities and the post-secondary education community to build upon existing programs.

Since 1964 the Canada student loans program has helped make post-secondary education more accessible by providing students with loans. This government has continued that tradition and in the 1997 budget we extended interest relief from 18 to 30 months for borrowers having difficulty repaying their loans.

Now we are expanding assistance even more. All borrowers will receive tax relief for interest on federal and provincial student loans and we will provide a 17% tax credit for the interest portion of what they repay each year.

Since Quebec does not participate in the Canada student loans program, the province is entitled to compensation if its program has substantially the same effect as the CSLP. With respect to reduction of student debt, the Government of Canada will review provincial measures with Quebec to see if they have a similar effect.

We are also addressing the challenge of helping families finance their children's post-secondary education long before they reach the post-secondary level. The new Canada education savings grant will benefit all families, but especially low and middle income families. The secret is to start early and to make regular contributions. The government will encourage this through the savings grant.

For example, if a family contributed $25 to a registered education plan every two weeks for 15 years, their child would have $4,700 available for each of the four years of higher education.

The previous two budgets included measures to make RESPs more attractive by raising the annual and lifetime contribution limits. The new Canada education savings grant will pay 20% on the first $2,000 in annual contributions for children up to age 18. The maximum annual grant will be $400 per child.

Saving for your child's education through RESPs means you will benefit from the savings grant and the tax-free growth of investment income. The savings grant will make RESPs among the most attractive savings vehicles available for a child's education. RESPs will definitely be one of the best things parents and other relatives can do for their children, for nieces or nephews.

Speaking of children, hon. members will recall that in the 1997 budget we enriched the Canada child tax benefit by $850 million effective this July. We promised further enrichment and we are delivering on that promise in this budget. We are committing an additional $850 million, spread over two years, beginning in July 1999 and again in July 2000.

As well, the budget proposes to increase the dollar limits for the child care expense deduction by $2,000 for children under 7 and by $1,000 for older children. This measure will provide tax relief of about $45 million for some 65,000 Canadian families.

As honourable members have pointed out on more than one occasion, we must continue to address the unacceptably high youth unemployment rate. The youth employment strategy is tackling that problem as will provisions under the new Canadian opportunities strategy. But we are also addressing youth unemployment quite specifically by challenging the private sector to hire more Canadian young men and women.

Employers who hire youth between the ages of 18 and 24 in 1999 and 2000 will pay no employment insurance premiums for those new workers. All companies will be eligible, not just small companies as was the case in the new hires program which ends this year.

It is estimated that this new measure will reduce payroll costs for employers by $100 million annually in both 1999 and 2000.

The budget clarified the Government of Canada's intention to make effective changes in the guaranteed income supplement, GIS, and the spouses allowance program, the SPA.

We will move the beginning of the GIS/SPA payment year from April to July. This will give needy seniors an additional three months to submit their income statements. This will ensure that the income tested payments of these individuals will not be cut off and the definition of income used to calculate payments will be more in keeping with those used for income tax purposes.

I began this debate by saying the budget is the result of sacrifices made by Canadians to eliminate the deficit and ensure fiscal responsibility. I congratulate Canadians for their determination to stay the course.

All hon. members can help us move in that direction by supporting Bill C-36.

[Euthanasia And Assisted Suicide, March 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the matter of euthanasia and assisted suicide has enormous ethical and legal ramifications. At the outset it is critical to note that the non-initiation and cessation of medical treatment is distinctly different from a deliberate action taken to bring about the death of a patient. A huge difference exists between allowing to die and killing.

We are engaged in a discussion on whether we as legislators should change the Criminal Code of Canada to permit the killing of persons with permanent or terminal illness. Let us be clear about that.

The right of a competent individual to refuse or cease medical treatment has long been accepted in law and in care giving, but for this country to permit euthanasia and assisted suicide, removing the penalties of criminal law, as has been done in Holland, will in effect redefine the values of the state. Further, it will gravely impinge on the traditional relationship between the patient and the physician and the role of palliative care within our health system.

Let us consider the doctor-patient relationship. The trust inherent here must be preserved. The belief that the patient's self-interest is always the physician's priority is the most vital component of that relationship. By creating a society in which the physician may participate in the active taking of life we cross a threshold and threaten the trust of beneficence that is the root of the physician-patient relationship. Where there is already vulnerability we risk the creation of fear and mistrust.

It is imperative to consider what motives might be behind a person's request for euthanasia or assisted suicide. Frequently the patient has begun to see himself as a burden on loved ones and feels obligated to cease being so. Sometimes the seriously ill patient is fearful of unrelieved pain that might not be managed and looks to assisted suicide as a way out.

While it is diminished, our health care system is capable of correction and of providing the resources and priorities necessary to address these fears. With appropriate support from hospitals, hospice and community care the concerns of the patient can be remedied. When the efforts of the care givers shift from curative to creating a comfortable environment wherein the person receives pain control, psychological and spiritual support, the opportunity exists for great integrity in the final weeks or months of the ill person's life.

As a former hospice worker I have witnessed great intimacy and honesty between the terminally ill person and his or her family that would never have occurred should the road chosen have been euthanasia instead of palliative care. Not only does resorting to euthanasia risk hijacking palliative care in this country and endangering the patient-physician relationship, it also leads our society on a trajectory we do not want.

The example of Holland, the only western country to officially sanction euthanasia and assisted suicide, cannot be omitted from any debate. Although the Dutch guidelines require that the patient be experiencing unbearable pain, that requirement is now read to include psychic suffering or the potential disfigurement of personality. I ask my colleagues how far down the slippery slope this shows the Dutch have gone. A further example is the landmark decision of 1993 in which a Dutch psychiatrist was ruled to be justified in helping his depressed but physically healthy patient to commit suicide.

The trajectory becomes a downward spiral, one on which this country must not embark.

In 1982 the Law Reform Commission of Canada raised the concern that there is a real danger that the procedure developed to allow the death of those who are a burden to themselves may be gradually diverted from its original purpose and eventually used to eliminate those who are a burden to others or to society.

In a world that does not try to give positive meaning to old age and suffering, it could become normal to ask to put an end to life and abnormal to want to live despite subtle pressures from all sides. We will have to justify our own survival. The day that an individual must justify his or her own survival must never be allowed to dawn in this country.

The legal framework must enhance the common good. Removing the Criminal Code restrictions against euthanasia and assisted suicide will in the long run deny that common good and the principles that have so enriched this country's jurisprudence. As legislators it is our obligation to reaffirm, not deny, the common good we have been elected to safeguard.

Our denial of euthanasia and assisted suicide must be accompanied by a greater commitment to far greater resources being assigned to palliative care in this country. Death and dying receive the least amount of support from medical research funding agencies. Palliative care is not fairly accessed nor in sufficient quality for all Canadians in all provinces and territories. Likewise greater priorities and resources must be assigned to palliative care in our medical schools than is currently provided.

The distinction drawn in the United States Supreme Court decision in Quill must be seen as critical: When a patient refuses life-sustaining medical treatment, he dies from the underlying fatal disease or pathology; but if a patient ingests lethal medication prescribed by a physician, he is killed by that medication.

In the first instance, the patient is allowed to die. In the second instance, the patient is killed. The distinction is integral. We would be debating the latter, the killing of patients by deliberate action taken to bring about their death. We have rightly accepted the concept of allowing to die. We must not accept the concept of killing.

This House will decide the timing of such a debate. The essence of that debate is as I have described. We must look to all the issues that are before us. We do not have the option to engage in emotionalism.

For us as legislators, there is a great onus to dissect and care for all the ingredients before us before we change a law like this that will have such enormous implications and ramifications for our society, for the continual downward spiral I have been describing.

We are not able to take an easy course. We are not able to participate further in a society that would allow for instant gratification on so many other fronts to be brought to bear on any issue as critical as this.

There must be no fear among people entering hospitals in this country. There must be no concern among seniors who already in many cases are coping as they are with other issues that do not remedy the worst things that come to them. They must feel that their care and their health is their physician's first concern. It is their legislator's first concern.

[Semaine Nationale De La Francophonie, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this week is the Semaine de la francophonie. As the member for Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, I have had the opportunity to meet many francophones from outside Quebec who are proud of their culture.

I encourage all French-speaking Canadians, and Franco-Ontarians in particular, to be proud of their language and culture.

Yesterday in Barrie I joined members of the club Richelieu in raising the Franco-Ontarian flag at city hall to celebrate this week and their Franco-Ontarian communities.

Being a member of La Francophonie allows Canada to convey to the rest of the world a spirit of understanding and respect for diversity.

I encourage all Franco-Ontarians and indeed all Canadians to be proud of their culture and their language.

[Winter Olympics, March 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in the House today to congratulate the athletes and coaches who honoured their community of Barrie by participating in the Olympic games at Nagano.

As member of Parliament for Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, I hope this House will allow me some bragging rights.

Last night the city of Barrie and the Barrie Sports Hall of Fame honoured these Olympic athletes, coaches and other participants who live, work and train in Barrie. These include Olympic silver medalist and world figure skating champion Elvis Stojko, figure skater Jeff Langdon, Shanye Corson on the men's hockey team and Stephen Cousins, British figure skating champion.

Also honoured were figure skating coaches Robert Tebby and Doug and Michelle Leigh, co-operators of the world renowned Mariposa School of Skating in Barrie and the training quarters for skaters from 17 countries.

I am proud to express my appreciation for the distinction these Olympians—