John Reynolds

[Privacy, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice can read the report. I was quoting from the privacy commissioner. There was a violation. In his report the commissioner expressed real concern with the confidentiality and security of privatization.

This minister has been denying it for three days. Five months ago we heard the same minister denying that HRDC grants were a problem. She was telling us everything was just fine. Now we have 20 police investigations into that department for those grants. Has the minister a plan, even a six point plan, to tell Canadians what she is doing to protect their privacy?

[Privacy, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice jumps to the feds and says the lists are secure. The Minister of Human Resources Development says that there has been no breaking of the law and that it has never been compromised. Let me quote the privacy commissioner who says:

—including a complaint involving an overenthusiastic RCMP officer who in giving insurance companies the names of Alberta motorists ticketed for failing to wear seatbelts violated their privacy rights.

If that right can be violated, where is the security?

[Supply, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I did not hear the end of the question. All I can say is that when I left the Government of British Columbia in 1991, because we were replaced by the NDP, our deficit was slightly under $1 billion and our health care system was working very well. The deterioration started when the federal government took money away from us for emergency rooms. It took $45 million out of the system.

I agree with my NDP friend. They have not just asked for money. They have asked for a curing of the system. We all agree with but it takes money to do it. There is a lot of waste in other government departments that we could use and should be priorized. There are a lot of government departments. We do not need the minister of fisheries. Fisheries is a provincial jurisdiction. We should get rid of him and his department and put that money into health care.

There is a lot federal issues on which we could reduce money so that average Canadians could get the health care they deserve.

[Supply, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that my constituent who wants a hip replacement is listening to the debate. I hope there are thousands of others across the country who are listening. They do not give a damn about the gross national product or what percentage it is because they do not understand it. All they know is that our health system is broken. If it takes 11%, 12% or 13% to make it work, let us make it work.

We say we have the best health care system in the world. Let us make sure it is the best. With all due respect I say to the member that there is an administration problem. There are more bureaucrats in our health ministry than we need. The provinces should be running health care. We do not need a big federal bureaucracy spending millions of dollars. We need to get Mrs. Smith's hip fixed. We need to get Mr. Smith's eyes fixed. We need to make sure there are no long six to nine month waits to cure our health problems. That is what the issue is all about. It is not about percentage. It is not about spending more here or less there.

The member is right. In a few minutes we will be up during question period asking lots of questions about the waste of $1 billion in HRDC. That money should be put into health care. We will be asking about files. How much did it cost to keep 39 million HRDC files on every Canadian? Why do we need them? Each of those files must have cost a few hundred bucks. There are tens of millions of dollars there that could be put into health care instead of having a secret file on how many times Canadians went to hospital.

I do not want a file in any government department indicating how many times I had to go to a hospital in a year. Do I smoke cigarettes or do I not? Did I not wear my seatbelt and get a ticket for it? The RCMP could show the file to an insurance company that will increase my insurance. I want my health care fixed.

The Canadian Alliance Party, the NDP and the Bloc will give Liberal members a list of the wasted money in the federal system that could be going toward better projects than what it is going to right now. The Tories will not participate because they are part of the problem.

[Supply, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

It is a pleasure to participate in the debate on this motion on health care. At the outset, let me say that the motion is characteristic of NDP policy on many things. Regrettably for them, times are changing and we must move with the times. This is no more so than in health care. The situation is code blue. It is critical.

In reality, the NDP is no closer to supporting provincial innovations in health care than are the Liberals. They do not like what Mr. Klein is doing, but they will not comment on what they are doing in British Columbia, which is very similar to what they are doing in Ontario. They are not willing to demonstrate flexibility in reforming the health care system. Until someone is, the situation will continue to deteriorate and the lives of Canadians will remain pawns in this game of lethargy by both the Liberals and the NDP.

For the NDP it is easier to point fingers and lay blame. They, like the Liberals, are applying the Canada Health Act as a hammer to penalize the provinces, which are in dire straits because of lack of funds and increasing pressures on the system.

I listened to the hon. member for Malpeque say that we just cannot throw money at a system. Why does he not stop to think? This money belongs to Canadians. This is not the Liberal government's money. The provinces deserve that money. Medicare is supposed to be a 50:50 proposition. It is not any more. It is funded 11% to 14% by the federal government. Money would make a difference.

Why do we not let the provinces do what our constitution says they should be doing, which is running the health care system? The Liberals use this big “We are going to do this for the health care system”. Stay out of the health care system and let the provinces run it.

When I was in the provincial government in British Columbia we had an emergency room system which operated very well. We had a $10 user fee. It was not mandatory. At the bottom of the form which people signed it stated that if they did not have the money or if they did not want to pay, they did not have to. It was a voluntary $10 fee. We were forced by the Liberal government to stop taking that $10. The costs in the emergency rooms went up by 145% the next year. There was no need for it. That was big brother managing a province that was doing quite fine operating its own system with a user fee that did not bother anybody in the emergency rooms, but the government said it would take away our highway grant of $90 million for that year if we did not stop collecting that $45 million worth of user fees in the emergency rooms. That was big brother operating. It has not improved the health care system in British Columbia. Perhaps it makes some people feel better.

The interesting part is that in all the years I was in the B.C. government we collected 98.5% of those $10 fees. Nobody refused to pay. Nobody minded paying. The usage rate in the emergency rooms went up the next year by a tremendous amount. Now people use it as a drop-in centre when they cannot get in to see their doctor.

The system was operating fine in the province until the interference of this government.

Let us be realistic and look at the government's track record on health care spending. The government has cut $25 billion out of the Canada health and social transfer over the past seven years. It will be cutting another $10 billion over the next four years. What does the government expect the provinces to do? They cannot provide the required services now and the government wants them to cut more. How can we expect that services are going to get better? They are going to get worse.

Let us take a look at the impact of the decrease in federal health care spending. Can hon. members imagine being told they have a cancerous tumour and have to wait three months for treatment? That is happening in this country. People are being told that it takes three months. Is it not bad enough that the doctor says that word, which shakes everyone from head to toe, without having to wait for x-rays?

As Canadians we can brag about our health care system, and so we should, but why are we spending $5 billion to cross the border into the U.S. to have MRIs and hip replacements? Because we cannot get it done here.

We have to solve this problem. The Liberal government is doing nothing to help solve that problem. The costs of people going across the border for treatment are increasing every year because of the lack of facilities in Canada. We have forgotten about technology in Canada. We have developed some of the best technology for medicine in the world, which the Americans are using, and we are paying to use it in the U.S. because the Liberal government has cut funding from the provinces.

There is one major failing in our health care system, and it is catching up on us. Canada has not kept up with technological innovations. Among the OECD countries, Canada is rated 23 out of 29 with respect to health care. In other words we are in the bottom one-third of the industrialized countries. We can sit here and brag all we want about our system but we are in the bottom third of the OECD.

Technology is the key to propelling our health care system and we have it in the country. I had a call the other day from one of my constituents. His grandmother has a hip which is not working. She can no longer walk and get to her car. She has been told there is an 18 month wait. She has to suffer for 18 months. What is the family doing? They are all chipping in a few dollars so she can go across the border to the Mayo Clinic and get her hip replaced. Are they not lucky that they all have a bit of money to help get their grandmother across the border?

Why should she have to wait? She spent 84 years paying her taxes, being a great Canadian, and now we have to ship her off to an American hospital for a hip replacement. How many people in the House have mothers and grandmothers with failing eyes who are waiting months and months and months to get into a hospital? It is awfully nice of my friends from Malpeque and elsewhere on the other side to say that money is not the problem, that it is the way the provinces are managing the system. That is not the problem. The provinces do not have the money to manage the system properly.

Why do we not sit down and negotiate that? Instead of giving great speeches about how we are here to protect the five principles of the health care act, why does the Minister of Health not talk in realistic terms? It should be a public hearing. We should let the public come to listen to the provincial health ministers and the federal minister debate the issue. Then they could get it out in front instead of the nonsense that is taking place.

The country is being divided over the health care issue. Provinces are trying to do their best, whether it is British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, or any other one, but they are getting very little co-operation from the federal minister.

We have an aging population. There will be greater demands, not less, on our system of health care delivery. That will happen year after year after year. Currently one in ten Canadians is over 65. By the year 2025 it will be one in five, in just another quarter of a century. Mr. Speaker, you and I will be in that age bracket 25 years from now. We will be one in five instead of one in ten. It will be tougher and harder to get our hips replaced and to get our eyes fixed if the program does not improve.

Another very scary statistic is that the average age of a specialist in Canada right now is 59. With program and training cutbacks and so forth, foreign countries are seducing students with lower tuitions, better tax environments and better training tools. We will be losing more doctors and thus more specialists. While this is happening the Prime Minister is saying that there is no brain drain.

The average age of specialists is 59. They are not staying here. I know in my riding, which includes Whistler, the number one ski resort in the world, the odd person falls down. In fact the minister of fisheries is still using a cane these days because of a little accident on a ski hill. We used to have four of the best bone doctors at the Lions Gate Hospital. There are two left and one is leaving. In Vancouver right now it takes months and months to see one of those specialists after that kind of an accident. It is a serious problem and the government is not looking at it.

In 1974, with a population of 22 million, some 2,640 new doctors entered the system. In 1997, with a population of 30 million, only 1,882 new doctors entered the system. We cannot afford to lose any of these doctors to other countries, let alone the specialists.

In some cases Canadians are currently waiting for up to nine months to see a specialist. We are in a critical situation and the government says that it cannot throw money at it, that it has to look at the system, that we have a better system than the Americans and that we cannot have two tiers.

As I mentioned earlier, we have a three tier system right now. Every member of the House knows that. We have a system where we have to make an appointment to visit a doctor. If we need to see a specialist we have to wait one, three, six or nine months.

Also every province has increased the number of services not covered under medicare. Every time I have been to my doctor's office there is a new list on the wall of items no longer covered under medicare. Who pays for those procedures? We pay for them out of our pockets. They are not being covered by medicare. That is a two tier system.

What about the constituent who is going down to the states for a hip replacement? That is the third tier: $5 billion going out of the country every year. It should be staying here. That is what Ralph Klein is trying to do and it is going to work very well. These people will rue the day they tried to call this a two tier system. They already have a three tier system because they have let the medicare system go to pot. They try to defend it by saying it is anti-American, which is typical Liberal-NDP action. Anytime there is a problem they say it is anti-American. That covers it up for all Canadians who think they are doing a good job.

Millions of Canadians of all political persuasion know that the system is broken. It is not Ralph Klein's fault. It is not the fault of the premier of British Columbia or of the premier of Ontario. It is the fault of the federal government which has knocked $25 billion out of medicare.

[Supply, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the Liberal member seems concerned about the fear of privatization. She talked a lot about a two tier system. Does she not think that we not only have a two tier but probably a three tier system in Canada already? We have our system that is not working well. We have a system of a number of procedures growing in just about every province that is not covered by medicare any more, so that only people who can afford certain procedures have them. Then we have about $5 billion a year going out of the country to the United States and to other parts of the world because Canadians leave to have operations they cannot get quickly enough in Canada. Do we really not have a three tier system already?

[Supply, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is seldom that I agree with my colleague but on that question I agree with her totally.

The government has cut $25 billion out of health care in the country. The member opposite said, “We need to restructure the health care system”. He said the MPPs in Ontario do not care. That is nonsense. They do care. What they care about is that the federal government has taken out $25 billion from the provincial system.

Why does the member think he has to solve the health care problem? Health care is a provincial jurisdiction. Many members in the House have been in provincial governments. They know how difficult it has been to operate a proper health system with the federal government taking out $25 billion.

When will the money be put back in? Give them the money and let the provinces run the system. They can do it very well if they get their share of the funding.

[Criminal Code, May 17th, 2000]

moved that Bill C-334, an act to amend the criminal code (wearing of war decorations), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin second reading debate on my private members' bill, Bill C-334, an act to amend the criminal code (wearing of war decorations).

This bill would allow relatives of a deceased veteran to wear any decoration awarded to such veterans without facing criminal sanction. The decoration must be worn on the right side of the relative's chest and would be limited to Remembrance Day.

My bill would amend section 419 of the criminal code. It would renumber this section as section 419(1) and would add the following:

(2) No person who is a relative of a deceased veteran commits an offence under paragraph (1)(b) where the person wears, on the right side of the person's chest, a distinctive mark relating to wounds received or service performed in war by that veteran or wears, on the right side of the person's chest, a military medal, ribbon, badge, chevron or any decoration or order that is awarded to that veteran for war services and the person does so on Remembrance Day.

As well, my amendment makes it acceptable for a person who has been legally adopted by a relative of a deceased veteran or by that veteran to wear these decorations as prescribed in the first part of my amendment.

At the outset allow me to say that my initiative is not meant to diminish or dishonour the service, sacrifice or valour of our veterans and those who have been awarded decorations. On the contrary, it is meant to celebrate and recognize the sacrifice and this achievement. Additionally it is meant to recognize and acknowledge bravery, gallantry and commitment to our nation. My initiative is meant to enhance and reinforce the honour bestowed on these very brave individuals.

My initiative comes from the relatives of veterans who fear that decorations awarded to their family members are being forgotten and put away in dusty boxes and drawers. They, like me, believe the time has come to move with the times and not let these precious decorations collect dust somewhere.

I further believe the time has come to follow the lead of Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand, our Commonwealth partners which amended their respective laws to reflect the times and the need to unveil these decorations and re-commemorate the valour of those who were awarded these with such distinction.

The law I seek to amend was written in 1920. It certainly served the purpose it was intended to do back then but it is not reflective of the hard facts of today. Our veterans are passing on and their decorations are hidden in dusty trunks, forgotten, never to be seen again, all because of a 1920 law. If they are not in trunks, they appear in flea markets where they are at the mercy of hucksters out to make a buck. Is this dignified or an honour to the veteran to whom it was awarded? I certainly think not. In fact it is offensive, undignified and a dishonour to the veteran. There is not a dollar figure that can be put on these decorations. They are priceless and should be viewed that way.

Furthermore, the section of the criminal code I seek to amend, section 419, is derived from a time when legitimate veterans did not want those who did not serve to buy these decorations and wear them. That had great merit and cause and was right for the times. Who would want someone who had not served in the great wars insulting the valour and bravery of those who sacrificed their lives? But this is year 2000 and I consider locked up medals a diminishment of the honour and respect they should garner. They should be exhibited by rightful relatives.

I mentioned that times have changed. So has membership in the Royal Canadian Legion. Sadly our veterans are passing on. The last remaining vestige of the bravery of our war veterans is in many cases the decorations awarded to their family members. Why should it be a crime for a relative to want to display the decoration and thus honour their deceased relative?

The hard facts concerning declining legion membership should give pause to reconsider the archaic law I seek to change. In December 1998 legion membership stood at 494,107. By December 1999 it had fallen to 478,494. In Pacific command in my specific area membership has dropped to 90,394 from 93,612 from 1998 to 1999. In Ontario command the trend is the same. It has fallen to about 181,007 from 186,562.

The trend is the same in every province in Canada. As our veterans keep aging, the trend will not only continue but will speed up. Where will it be in 10 years? In my own riding of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast membership of Branch 60 in West Vancouver has fallen from 788 to 731.

As I said, our veterans are aging and their relatives and family members wish to hold on to some vestige of the bravery these great Canadians exhibited. Allowing them to wear the decorations on Remembrance Day is not asking too much.

Given the trend in membership, I should point out that of the 731 of Branch 60 in West Vancouver, there are 368 ordinary members and some 244 associate members. There are not a lot of veterans left.

Allow me to give a more demonstrated breakdown of the age of legion members. I believe the trend will be even more startling regarding the mortality of war veterans. Of legion members, 44% are over the age of 65. Another 18% are age 55 to 64. That accounts for 298,840 of the 478,000 total membership. When we factor in membership by age and gender, we find out that 25.17% or 120,577 are 75 or older; 9.98% or 47,836 are age 70 to 74; and another 9.10% or 43,663 are age 65 to 69.

Our veterans are indeed aging, as we all are. Would it not be a positive gesture to remember them by allowing their families to proudly display their decorations as their veteran family members pass on?

My motivation to move the bill comes from individuals whose family members were awarded medals and have passed on. They wish to honour their deceased war veterans and heroes.

One individual in particular, Christine Ballantine of West Vancouver, a legion member herself, has mounted a campaign to see this initiative realized. She recognizes that our veterans are passing on and she wants to honour her father, a decorated veteran, by wearing his medals on Remembrance Day.

She has, as I said, mounted a campaign and gathered support from many legion branches. Besides her West Vancouver branch, Christine has gathered written support of the Howe Sound zone of the Royal Canadian Legion comprising approximately 3,800 members in six legions. She has also received support from the Sooke branch of Vancouver Island and the Whitehorse, Yukon branch.

My bill has also received support from the Billy Bishop branch in Vancouver and I believe in B.C. some 5,339 are on board. I understand it is growing as recognition of the genesis, motivation and honourable and historical intentions of my bill become evident.

Allow me to read some of the comments I have received from some of the legion branches supporting my bill. The Sooke branch of the Royal Canadian Legion writes, “We consider it would strengthen reverence of Remembrance Day”. The Whitehorse, Yukon branch writes, “It would enhance Remembrance Day services by allowing family members to bring medals out on Remembrance Day and thus perpetuate the act of remembrance”.

This is my motivation: to recognize this important day and the significant and selfless contributions of our veterans who need to be honoured in a dignified and demonstrable fashion for many, many years to come.

I would like to see the interest and support of the Royal Canadian Legion and the work it does to continue. Individuals make the legion what it has become. Members are the institution. The institution is not larger than the membership.

Allowing remaining family members who may be members of the legion or inclined to become new members to wear their family decorations would help sustain and invigorate this important institution.

To honour the past is laudatory, but let not the past disallow an act of remembrance by family members of veterans.

I have received a letter from a very distinguished gentleman, Dr. John Blatherwick, who is a British Columbia doctor and has served that province well. He is regarded as an authority on the issue of war decorations. In fact, he has devoted a great amount of his time to the study and promotion of the issue of war decorations. Lest we forget. I would like to quote from his letter of support for my bill. He writes:

The question you have to ask is—What harm would removing the law create? It would not take away from any legion members' medals in any way. It would not debase the value of the person who was awarded the medal in any way. So it would not harm anybody. What good would it do—It would keep that connection with the past and help some people to remember. Bill C-334 is a good bill and it makes common sense.

As Dr. Blatherwick also says, the problem with common sense is that it ain't so common. He is, of course, quoting Will Rogers. Naturally, I hope common sense will prevail.

Dr. Blatherwick asked why we in Canada still cling to an old law regarding the wearing of medals. The answer he says is again, a lack of common sense. He is quite emphatic and states that some keep their heads firmly in the past and are out of step with today. He says, as I mentioned earlier, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand see no problem with moving on. They do not want to put people in jail for remembering. Surely Canadians do not want to see the family members of veterans put in jail either. We should be trying to keep alive the memory of those who served rather than hide their sacrifices.

Dr. Blatherwick points out that it has been a long time since Canada has been involved in a declared shooting war. The peacekeeping forces in the former Yugoslavia have been shot at but they get the same peacekeeping medal that has been issued to multitudes of non-shooting missions. One could not tell a shooting United Nations medal from a non-shooting United Nations medal.

According to this expert, as he further points out, we were at war in the gulf but did not suffer any casualties. As he says, the last real shooting war was Korea and before that, World War II. Therefore, there is not much danger in young men or women wearing medals they are not entitled to.

He feels the entire exercise surrounding this issue boils down to one of common sense. As he says, if the legion wants November 11 and the Battle of the Atlantic Sunday and the Battle of Britain day and other military celebrations to remain important, one way is to encourage those medals to come out of the drawers and boxes and be displayed by the veterans' loved ones on Remembrance Day.

I ask members to read this speech again if they are concerned about this over the next few months while this is being debated because Dr. Blatherwick, as I mentioned, is well respected in my province and is an expert on war medals.

I believe these decorations are a birthright for the family members of those who were awarded them and sadly can no longer display them. Allowing family members to wear these decorations is a dignified way to honour their family member for the sacrifice they made. I firmly believe that those family members would treat and display these decorations with the respect that they deserve. I do not believe they would take this honour lightly or be frivolous in the manner they display the decoration. Those individuals who are moved to recognize their deceased veteran take this issue seriously and with the dignity and respect that it warrants.

Let us not forget, but let us not make criminals of those who want to remember their veterans.

[Human Resources Development, May 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the minister likes to make out like it is old news. We have the freedom of information available to us today. The privacy commissioner brought his information out yesterday.

Let me give another quote from her own internal audit:

It is not unusual for employees to have in their possession an HRDC laptop, desktop or other IT equipment located at the employee's residence.

A laptop is in their own residences. That is a quote from her own internal audit.

How can the minister assure security when the personal information of Canadians is being taken home every night from their place of business?

[Human Resources Development, May 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, here is another quote from the minister's own internal audit:

There is no assurance that all hard drives are erased of potentially sensitive HRDC data prior to disposal since the cleaning process is inconsistently practised within HRDC.

The privacy commissioner is concerned. Canadians are concerned. How can Canadians trust the minister to protect their privacy when she is so unconcerned about what is happening in her own department?