Lynn Myers

[Supply, March 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague opposite who I know has a great interest in health care. He sits on the health committee and contributes in a very positive and meaningful way most of the time. Unfortunately that is not so today.

Today he is talking a bit about all kinds of outrageous things in terms of what the federal government is doing. Quite frankly he is wrong. What we are doing is putting aside the kind of money that is necessary, certainly in the short term. More important, and this goes exactly to the heart of where the debate is going, we need to bring all provincial and territorial partners to the meeting in May with the federal health minister to start looking at a long term solution with long term objectives and at a focus in terms of where we want to go with our health care system. It is not always about throwing money at the problem. It is about how do things better, differently, and innovatively, given the technology and change in circumstances.

Will the hon. gentleman commit today to working closely with the federal government to ensure that Madam Marois and the people of Quebec who want to work closely will do the same in a positive and meaningful way? I remind him that not so long ago the Canadian Medical Association said that it was time for us to put aside petty politics. It is time for us to get beyond the partisanship. Health care is way too important for Canadians wherever they live in this great and fantastic country of ours.

Will the hon. member commit today to working hard and effectively to try to bring about the kind of long term solutions that are necessary for Quebecers and all other Canadians? After all, this is a Canadian issue. It goes to the very heart and soul of what it means to be a Canadian. It is an underlying value that we cherish, respect and want to improve on every chance we get. I know the hon. gentleman has no choice but to agree with everything I said.

[Supply, March 2nd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member for Macleod speak about a slanging match. What we heard in his speech was precisely that. He talked about stupidity, about things mishandled and about all the kinds of terms that one would expect better from the very people who said that they would bring a fresh start to parliament and a new way of doing business.

Despite the member's protestations to the contrary, he and his party are the very ones who would bring Canada to a two-tier American style health care system. Canadians reject this. They reject it out of hand and they reject it for all the right reasons. He can deny and deny this but the reality is that those Reformers opposite, those holier-than-thou's, are always on the bandwagon of wanting to bring in two-tier American style politics. Even when it comes to the 17% flat tax, their right wing soulmates, the Republicans in the United States, the evangelist rednecks, have rejected this kind of nonsense. Yet, there they are clinging to it like they so desperately want to do.

I say that Canadians see through that nonsense. They see through the Reform's flat tax nonsense. They see through its ridiculous two-tier American style nonsense. Those people who claim they want to bring a fresh start to parliament are the very ones who would bring it down. We on the government side will not have any part of it.

The hon. member is a physician. I was a medical orderly and put myself through university by proudly working as a medical orderly.

The Canadian Medical Association—and I read this exactly two days ago—said that we should put aside our partisan politics, put aside the petty kind of nonsense that the hon. member opposite was slinging around and that we should work together on something as fundamental and as important for all Canadians as our health care system.

My question is simple. Why does the member not come clean right here and now and say that he and his party will put aside the petty politics, put aside all that kind of nonsense and work together for the appropriate long term solutions that are necessary in order to fix the system? This is an underlying value of Canadians and this is something that Canadians want to see happen. Why will he not do that?

[Supply, March 2nd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I agree with some of the things the hon. member said. I certainly agree with the last point about the Reformers and how they want an American style two-tier medical system, which is an absolute disgrace.

However, where I do not agree with the hon. member is that we on the government side have made a commitment to Canadians that we will protect the health care system in Canada because it is an underlying value.

I wonder why the hon. member does not ask her leader, whom I see is in the House, the hon. member for Halifax, why in 1997 she said we should add an additional $1.5 billion. In 1998 she said we should add another $2.8 billion. Excuse me, that is not nearly enough and we on the government side have added a great deal more than that.

In their party platform in 1997, the NDP members argued that there should be $79 billion additional spent in Canada. How much of that was earmarked for health? It was 10%. Now we hear from the hon. member opposite all these nice words. My question to her is simple. Why does she not put aside this petty politic stuff, and do like the Canadian Medical Association and others have said, and get all the people together to work on long term solutions?

[The Budget, March 1st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member opposite should have better parliamentary decorum. He should know that the word deceit is unacceptable. I would also like to point out that those people opposite with their soulmates, the Republican Party, are out to lunch.

[The Budget, March 1st, 2000]

The question I have for the hon. member is quite simple. Does he, with his social conscience which is really quite attuned, support the flat tax concept? I would be very interested in that.

Listen to the hon. member opposite, the Reformer, calling me a liar. He should watch himself. He should go back to—

[The Budget, March 1st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member opposite. He had quite a few things to say which pertained to health care in this great country of ours.

I want to note, though, that in the year 2000-01 the cash and tax point transfers for health will be $31 billion. That is an all time high. I invite the hon. member, who is quite well versed in issues of health, to recheck the facts, recheck the budget documents, and take a look at exactly and precisely the kind of money that not only other provinces will be getting but Quebec as well. Perhaps he could then advise Madam Marois of the good things that the federal government is doing in this very important area.

He should encourage the health minister for Quebec to come to the main meeting with the Minister of Health at the federal level and his provincial counterparts to see what can be done over the long term. The finance minister's budget has ensured that there will be a short term injection of money into the all-important health care system, but the main meeting will be crucial in terms of getting together provincial and territorial partners to ensure that a final, solid and long term solution is found.

I invite the hon. member, who I know has great influence in many areas, to do precisely that and to make sure that the health minister for Quebec is at the table and contributes in a very positive and meaningful way for a change.

Does the hon. member support the Reform Party's flat tax policy? Does he support what the Reform Party is up to in terms of this 17% nonsense? I would like to hear the hon. member's opinion. After all, it is the Reform Party which, in its platform, would have gutted health care, social programs, pensions and all the things which we have put in place for Canadians. Do not take my word for it. Check the Reform Party platform. If we check its new fresh start program we will see the kind of nonsense for which the Reform Party opposite stands. It is outrageous.

[Learning Disabilities, March 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this month the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada and several other volunteer organizations from coast to coast are hosting a variety of activities and events to raise public awareness about learning disabilities.

Approximately three million Canadians of all ages—children, youth and adults—are challenged with learning disabilities. My 20 year career as a teacher taught me that learning disabilities are not limited or confined to classrooms. Learning disabilities affect all aspects of human and social functioning.

Students with learning disabilities are twice as likely to drop out of high school than their non-disabled peers. Studies have also shown links between learning disabilities and the rates of adolescent suicide, young offenders, adult inmates and teenage mothers.

As we move into the new millennium it is vital that all Canadians obtain appropriate learning skills and we thank all those involved in this very worthwhile endeavour.

[The Budget, February 29th, 2000]

The taxpayers were paying while you were away campaigning.

[Canada Post Corporation Act, February 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise today and speak to Bill C-238.

I listened with great interest to my colleague from the New Democratic Party on the opposite side speak about things American. My mind flipped back to the last election when the NDP found it necessary to go the United States to get some of its work done in terms of the election. I always find it interesting when members opposite, such as the hon. member, say one thing and yet the party, at least during the last election, does quite another.

Having said that, it is with great interest that I speak today about this very important bill. At the outset, I want to express my great respect for the hardworking Canadian men and women who deliver our mail.

I have a substantial background in this subject as my father was a rural route mail courier for 35 years. He did that with honour and in terms of doing the right thing for my family and for the community. I am happy to contribute to the debate to improve the working conditions of these entrepreneurs who are rural route mail couriers.

As I understand it, the member for Winnipeg Centre has received representation from the Organization of Rural Route Mail Couriers, as most of us have over the past little while. He has decided now to support them by tabling this legislation.

We know that Bill C-238 would allow contractors to be considered as employees of Canada Post. Ironically, I do not think the bill would benefit the very group it is trying to help. I agree with the hon. member for Kelowna on this point, and I think there are others in the House who would agree with us as well, that it would in fact harm them.

Rural route contractors continue to do this work, primarily because it gives them flexibility. They do not have to punch a clock and they do not have to do exactly what people tell them to do. More importantly, they can exercise their own initiatives and resourcefulness in this important area.

As the member for Winnipeg Centre knows, much of this work is of a part time nature. During the last hour of debate the member himself stated that rural route couriers do this work to earn supplementary income for their families. Repealing subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, as Bill C-238 suggests, would eliminate all this. I would think this is not at all what we want to do here.

I echo the comments from the member for Kelowna who said that Bill C-238 would take away the flexibility these people enjoy today, both on the rural route courier side and on the Canada Post side. Clearly it would do away with that and do away with a way of life. I do not think that is what parliament and Canadians ultimately want.

We know that the small and medium size business sector in Canada is growing very rapidly. More and more Canadians are choosing this way of life because it offers them flexibility and opportunity. The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre said that rural route contractors do not want these freedoms and would prefer to become employees of Canada Post instead, paying union dues.

Bill C-238 would not only jeopardize the entrepreneurialism of the rural route contractors, it would also have a significant financial impact on Canada Post.

As the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac previously stated, changing Canada Post's contracting relationship with rural route contractors would potentially increase the operating costs of the corporation substantially with no corresponding improvement in service levels to the public. That is important to note.

I will not stand here today and pretend that I have not heard the concerns of rural route contractors. I have and I think they are important to listen to. It is important to understand and, as I said before, my father was one.

The good news is that Canada Post is listening. The corporation has taken concrete steps and measures to resolve their concerns. For example, during the first hour of debate on this bill, and again today, the common message that has been heard is that rural route contractors want a tendering process that is fair, open and transparent. Canada Post has said that this is exactly what they can expect.

At a recent appearance before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations, the president of Canada Post, the Hon. André Ouellet, said that the rural route contractors will be treated with respect and their work will be valued and remunerated according to the contract they have signed with Canada Post.

Mr. Ouellet also confirmed that he has had several meetings over the past few months with representatives of the contractors and the couriers. As a result, Canada Post has introduced a number of initiatives to improve its relationship with this very important partner, especially in communities in rural Canada.

These initiatives will provide rural route contractors with more information and greater support which they require to meet the needs and expectations of customers across this great country of ours.

This is clearly the best solution for rural route contractors, Canada Post and all Canadians. The rural route contractors maintain the entrepreneurial freedom that they have traditionally enjoyed over time and Canadians in turn maintain a high quality, cost efficient and effective postal service.

As a member of parliament, I am concerned that Canadians get the best service possible from their post office no matter where they live, and especially in rural Canada. I am very happy that we have now put in place a moratorium on the closing of post offices because there were some in my area that were in jeopardy.

Canada Post has now introduced a number of changes to improve postal service in rural Canada. Canada Post has implemented 96 local areas to help improve the speed and reliability of mail outside of core urban areas. Delivery standards in rural Canada are now the same as those in the urban communities. That is good news for all Canadians. As well, local staff in rural offices now have the flexibility to adopt community based hours to suit local needs.

The Canadian government and Canada Post are collaborating to make government information on programs and services more available to rural Canada and all Canadians. In this regard, 12 Service Canada access centres have been established in rural post offices across Canada. These are but a few examples of Canada Post's continuing efforts to improve the postal service for all Canadians.

Although I do not support Bill C-238, I agree with all hon. members who firmly believe that rural route mail contractors and carriers deserve to be treated fairly and with respect. I hope that Canada Post continues to listen and to act on the concerns expressed by these very important entrepreneurs.

I urge all members not to support the bill. I do not think it is in the best interest of Canadians. We should proceed on that basis knowing that we will ultimately, as the government, do the right thing for not only rural Canadians but for all Canadians no matter where they live in this great country of ours.

[National Defence, February 24th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my congratulations to the men and women who work at the Department of National Defence.

Canadian forces have record levels of overseas deployments to peacekeeping missions and increased activities at home.

The Department of National Defence has made fundamental organizational changes in order to ensure that the structure of the department and the Canadian forces are ready to support these new challenges.

An independent report released earlier this month noted effective implementation of reforms in over 300 areas. The reforms range from the creation of a military ombudsman, to the revamping of the military justice system and to the implementation of quality of life initiatives.

The Canadian forces and the Department of National Defence have demonstrated they are capable of fundamental changes at an institutional and cultural level. I applaud their flexibility and leadership. The department deserves our respect and our gratitude.