Bev Desjarlais

[Supply, October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to join others who have congratulated you on your appointment to the Chair. I have enjoyed working with you over the last number of years and have known you to be nothing but fair, at least when you are in the Chair.

It is interesting today that we would be here debating the motion that is before us. As my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona mentioned earlier today, the preamble and the motion do not seem to give a clear direction as to what the official opposition was looking for. It is interesting to note, and as someone who has been here now since 1997, that often motions are written in such a way to catch the opposing parties and use something against them whether in an election campaign or in a newspaper article. We just want to have something to use against them and that so often is the case.

I would hope that was not the intent of the opposition on something so serious as proper funding for the military and ensuring safe equipment for the men and women who are in our military. I would hope that is not the case and that what we are really doing here is discussing and debating what the government's policy should be and whether or not the funding is adequate.

I will read a section of the motion:

--the combat capabilities of the Canadian Forces have been permitted to decay and the government is continuing this trend by proposing to raise a peacekeeping brigade at the expense of existing combat ready forces--

Most Canadians have a hard time distinguishing peacekeepers from combat ready. There are those who know the military and have said our peacekeepers are combat ready. They are trained individuals. They have to be combat ready for the jobs that they are doing. So we are left wondering what the heck is going on here. Is it a matter that the Conservatives are opposed to peacekeeping? I do not think so. However, I am not sure.

I want to read another section which I believe is from the Conservative's platform. It says that Canada's defence policy must reflect the global environment by balancing fiscal constraints with issues of collective security, participation in peacekeeping and peacemaking missions, and an appropriately structured military that is sustainable and sufficiently flexible to react to needs.

The Conservative Party was saying, at least during the election campaign, that it supported peacekeeping. However, if we go strictly by the motion today, we would say that it does not really support peacekeeping as compared to combat. It only supports the one and not the peacekeeping, so I have to wonder what exactly it was intending to do by the motion.

Over time we realize different parties say different things at times. Again, I have to question the reliability of what the Conservative Party has said because during the election it said the following on strong democracy:

The Conservative Party of Canada believes true democracy involves vigorous participation by all citizens in the affairs of the country.

This is extremely important. It said:

We will commit to broad consultation with citizens across Canada to further the ongoing policy development process and ensure Members of Parliament have the fullest input from all Canadians.

Yesterday the defence committee refused to meet with the people of Canada on missile defence. It sided with the government and said we are going to go along with George Bush and put in the missile defence. The Conservative Party does not care what the people of Canada have to say. It did not want to hear that Canadian citizens do not go along with missile defence because anyone with an ounce of sense would know that is the weaponization of space.

There are Republicans in the United States saying this is the weaponization of space. There is no question about it. Once again we have a situation where, rather than standing up for Canadians and what they believe in, we have the Liberal government and, as we have always said, those just like them, the Conservatives going right along together saying they do not care what Canadians say.

Before I forget, I want to indicate that I am splitting my time with my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh.

I want to emphasize the seriousness of this motion today and the lack of clarity in the motion. I do not think there is any question that every member of Parliament and all Canadians appreciate what our military people have done for us in the past. On Remembrance Day we always make a point of taking the time to recognize the people who have been either injured or killed over the years.

Certainly we recognize the military people who support our efforts. Whether Canadians agree with the government's position and what it might be doing on a particular issue or not, Canadians support the people within the military because they know the military is acting on their behalf to promote what they want to see as Canadians. There is no question about that.

Do we need to properly fund the military? Absolutely. It is unconscionable that any government or Parliament would say that we want our troops to go on a peacekeeping or peacemaking mission in a certain area of the world where we know it is going to be dangerous because some people who will not agree with it will be jumping out at them and possibly laying bombs on the road. We would want our troops to be riding in the best armoured vehicles that would help protect them. We all know that things could happen and they could be killed, but let us give them the best of what is available.

It would seem like a basic thing to think that people who are in situations where there may be possible sniper attacks and those kind of things would all be wearing at least bulletproof vests. We give them to a good number of our police forces within our country, but do the military have them? No. That is not acceptable. These men and women are working on our behalf for our country and we are not giving them what they need.

Somehow the government's priorities would rather see money going elsewhere. Some would say that it was only millions, not billions, that was wasted in the scandal or in different patronage plums within the Liberal government. If 1¢ of taxpayers' dollars was wasted that could have provided one piece of equipment for our military men and women, it is unconscionable. For every dollar that was wasted, people should remember that possibly one life might have been saved, maybe two, and maybe more. That is what is unconscionable.

As the Conservatives said, we need to be fiscally responsible. We need to have sustainability and balance based on the environment. It is crucially important that we provide the proper funding when our men and women are going into certain operations, otherwise we should not be sending them. That is the name of the game. We should not be sending them.

I want to mention, as my Conservative colleague from Trenton did, that I had the opportunity to take part in the defence program for parliamentarians. It was excellent. I had never experienced any kind of military operation. There were no bases where I grew up or in my riding, so it was a great opportunity to see the people in the search and rescue operations in Trenton and the fact that they were still using some of the older helicopters and equipment that has not been updated.

They were doing the best they could with what they had and speaking very proudly of their force, as well as their country. As a show of respect to them, we should do the same by properly funding and equipping our men and women in the military.

[VIA Rail, October 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the transport minister.

When the government admitted that it was $7 billion off on its budget line, one has to wonder why the promised funding for VIA Rail was cancelled.

Why is the transport minister silent on support for VIA Rail? Where is the government's commitment to passenger rail which is so crucial in meeting commitments to transport, rebuilding cities and communities, and to the Kyoto accord?

[Canada Shipping Act, October 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for acknowledging that there is no substance in the bill. He has indicated that himself. It is just a change from one department to another. It is not the Department of Transport that is incompetent, it is the government that has been incompetent. It is the government that mickey moused around with this piece of legislation. It said it was going to do this, it was going to do that, then said no, it has to switch it over here. Now we have to have it before the House so that we can make it clear because there is such confusion. That is the problem. I certainly look forward to going to committee.

The reason I did not respond further to the bill was because I listened to a number of my colleagues from all parties talk of what is happening within this piece of legislation and I did not want to take up anymore time going on about that. However, I wanted to make the government fully aware that we are going to ensure that the piece of legislation that flows through and comes out of committee with recommendations will have substance, and it will be clear as to what is going to happen. We are not going to put up with the incompetence of the government.

[Canada Shipping Act, October 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to make some comments on this bill.

I want to thank my colleague from Halifax who spoke on this bill on Friday and emphasize the lack of work that was being done on the issue of Sable Island to ensure that environmental precautions were in place, and that there was follow-up to ensure that there was no damage being done to Sable Island as well as other areas.

We have heard a lot about this bill and the reasons why it is before us. It is just mechanical and not really important. It is just moving one thing from the other and not really changing anything. However, this piece of legislation is one of the most blatant examples of what was happening with this government. It is one of the most blatant examples of incompetence

It shows how the year prior to the prime ministerial change and the time following has seen a government in disarray, not properly looking after the business of the country, overall incompetence in financial mismanagement, and being out on the bottom line figure by $7 billion. That is what we have been dealing with. Now we are told we have to fix this mess, and that we are going to do it by just switching it over in this piece of legislation.

This is an opportunity within this bill to clean up some of the problems, such as the Coast Guard not being adequately funded, as my colleagues from the Bloc have mentioned. This will be an opportune time to do that. I would suggest that in committee we are going to do more than just a little mechanical change. There may be robots on the government's side that are operating mechanically, but I can tell members that most of my colleagues here in the House from the opposition side are not acting on purely a mechanical change. We are going to fix what was wrong to start off with and ensure it gets done in committee.

The government has actually admitted to this incompetence. One needs only to look at the parliamentary secretary's speech on Friday. He talked about how they did this one day, then by an order in council they did that, and then they tried to fix it on another day. It is so blatantly there. It is important that the rest of us in the House from the opposition side ensure that we are not going to tolerate that incompetence. The government is in a position to finally do what it should have done with recommendations from that previous report.

There have been numerous overlaps and there is confusion in departments. We are going to see a lot more of that in other departments as well. I saw the new list of ministers with ministers acting under different departments and their bailiwicks over there. Within one department, it looks like there are two or three ministers looking after the same issue. There is a mess throughout the whole process. The number of ministerial increases directly relates to the number of promises the Prime Minister had to make to his loyal leadership people. We saw many more people put in place and much more confusion happening within the government. What we see in this department, we are going to see elsewhere if we do not keep on top of things and ensure that taxpayers' dollars are not being wasted as a result of government incompetence.

I am looking forward to this bill going to committee. We certainly do not want to hold it up. Transport is going to be having its initial meeting this week and I want it to have some legislation to work with. I am not going to say any more on this issue, but I want to make these things clear to the government, to the minister, and to the parliamentary secretary who I know will be at the transport committee. In spite of the fact that through democratic reform we did not want to see parliamentary secretaries in committees, they are going to be there. We are going to take them to task and ensure that proper legislation is put in place.

[Government Surplus, October 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is bragging about a surplus gained from the hardship and struggle of Canadians. He brags about being out $7 billion on the government's budget. Now he is to pay down more of the debt at the expense of ordinary Canadians.

What about the government's other debts? What about the promised compensation to residential school and hepatitis C victims? It is time the government paid those debts before it is too late.

There was $1.7 billion allocated to residential school claimants. Of some 200 victims going before the adjudicator, only three have been given a hearing, this after filling out a 37 page application.

The health minister announced that a select group of hepatitis C victims might be getting compensation previously withheld from them. This compensation is not new money, just unspent, because once again the Liberals' scam compensation package was both out of reach and did not apply to many claimants.

The Liberal government continues to spend more and more money paying lawyers to prevent victims from gaining restitution. This is reprehensible. The government should follow through on its promised compensation before there are no claimants left, unless of course that was its plan after all.

[Louise Pargeter, October 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Louise Pargeter, a parole officer with the Correctional Service of Canada.

Ms. Pargeter was killed in the line of duty in Yellowknife on October 6. She is only the second parole officer in Canada to die in the line of duty. The first was Mary Steinhauser, who died in a prison hostage taking in New Westminster, B.C. in 1975.

Ms. Pargeter was on her eighth day back at work after her maternity leave. Our condolences go out to Louise's family, friends and co-workers in the correctional service.

[Canada Post, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Under his direction the Treasury Board minister introduced new guidelines to clean up the mess created by the Liberals. The revenue minister blatantly ignored these guidelines when he appointed his buddy, Gordon Feeney, to the board of Canada Post. Now he says he will put the appointment before a parliamentary committee. How is this any different from the procedure used under the predecessor's regime?

Will the Prime Minister either revoke Mr. Feeney's appointment or at least guarantee that he will accept the recommendation of the committee?

[Criminal Code, May 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a short comment. I know my colleague from the Conservatives was somewhat disappointed that the New Democratic Party was not going to put up a speaker. Quite frankly, having had a good number of people in the House listen to me on a number of instances today, I did not want to repeat anything or to speak any more than I had to today.

However, I want to reaffirm the position that we have taken in the past. It is private members' business and everyone will vote according to how they choose, but generally, we have taken the position that we support this bill going to committee. We will encourage our colleagues to vote in favour of it going to committee.

[Supply, May 11th, 2004]

The health minister said--

[Supply, May 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to respond to a number of comments my colleague has made.

First, she mentioned clinics where anyone can go any day and get an X-ray on their leg if they need it, but if there is an accident the doctor can order it and it is covered. I would suggest that she has just explained the loophole that is out there for people to queue-jump. All the doctor has to say is “this is not medically necessary” and someone can go to that other clinic and get the service provided ahead of time. That is a serious issue that has been brought forth as a result of loopholes in the system, just with a doctor writing “not medically necessary” so they can queue-jump.

I believe the member made the statement that not all the hospitals are publicly owned because the provincial governments run them. In my view, provincial governments are still public. They have been for some time.

I also want to comment on her indication about the Romanow report and following along what Romanow did. Let me quote from a section of the Romanow report written in response to private, for profit delivery. It states:

--in effect, these facilities “cream off” those services that can be easily and more inexpensively provided on a volume basis, such as cataract surgery or hernia repair. This leaves the public system to provide the more complicated and expensive services for which it is more difficult to control cost per case.

But if something goes wrong with a patient after discharge from a private facility--as a result, for example, of a post-operative infection or medical error--then the patient will likely have to be returned to a public hospital for treatment as private facilities generally do not have the capacity--

A number of issues have come forth, and I believe it is questions and comments, Mr. Speaker, so unless I am restricted in making a certain length of comments, I also want to mention this. The member said the government is opposed to for profit delivery, but I would say to her that the reason this is an issue is what the minister said at the health committee:

The minister was remarkably blunt in his response. He said that, in fact, the Canada Health Act does not prohibit private sector delivery of medicare services...“If some provinces want to experiment with the private delivery option, my view is that as long as they respect the single-payer, public payer--

They should be allowed to go ahead, said the minister.

So we have an issue here. We want to hear the Prime Minister and the health minister say they will not allow for profit delivery. They cannot say they are against for profit if they are not putting enough dollars into the system. I cannot say I do not want a hole in the roof of my house because I do not want the rain to come through and then not fix the hole.