Bev Desjarlais

[Softwood Lumber, April 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take a lot of time on this motion as the issue of the softwood lumber dispute and the problems within the softwood lumber industry have been brought up time and time again in the House. They certainly have been raised in question period and emergency debates.

My colleague across the way indicated that the softwood lumber agreement expired in 2001 and that some discussions had been taking place before 2001. Here we are in 2004 and there is no resolution to the softwood lumber dispute. Quite frankly, the motion by my colleague from Etobicoke North is an indication of just how badly the government has failed the forestry workers and the softwood lumber industry throughout Canada.

I recently had the opportunity of being in the U.S. and I listened to a number of discussions that were going on in the U.S. legislature relating to patent drug legislation. I could not help but note the similarities. Canada had to change the way it did business. We had to change our legislation. We were told by an outside group that they did not like the legislation that we formed in our democratic institution, the Parliament of Canada. They did not like what Canadians said about how they wanted patent legislation. The government had to buckle under to a WTO ruling that said we had to change our legislation because they did not like it. Quite frankly, that is an intrusion on the sovereignty of a nation. It is an intrusion on a country being able to best represent its people.

It is the same situation within the softwood lumber industry. When I hear comments such as “When we successfully reform our forest policy” it says outright that Canadian provinces have not been doing things right. It says that they have been bad, that they have been wrong in the way they have been doing business. It is an intrusion by the federal government on the provinces by allowing this type of attitude to be put out and to hear it from members across the way.

Each and every province should have the right to deal with its lumber resources as it so chooses. On the east coast there are private lumber companies. Saskatchewan, B.C. and Manitoba have crown lands and they chose to put in place certain licensing agreements for forestry companies to log. They are being told that they are wrong, that they do not have the right to do that or to sell the product at what they think is the right price. For all those who believe in the free market system, I guess the free market approach is only okay if it means that a private company gets to sell off something the way it wants, but it is not okay for a province to do that.

In the case of my province, I am very conscious of the fact that our lumber resources and all of our resources in a good many areas are jointly owned. I say owned because they fall within lands that belong to first nations. We have tried to work out a process where first nations communities have access to benefits of resources.

When we start to allow another country to impose and tell us how to do business, it may affect all those different facets that we have to work into our way of doing business in Canada. It has been extremely disappointing to hear my colleagues on the governing side accept the approach that somehow Canadian provinces are wrong in how they do business.

Although it is not perfect, we have one of the best forestry practices in Canada. Reforestation takes place in the areas that are being logged. As I said, it is not perfect. From an environmental perspective improvements could be made and there are those within the environment community who want to see changes happen. However, overall, we have done far better than the U.S. companies have done. They do not have the same type of resources we have and as a result, they are moving in.

Some of those companies in the U.S. that want our lumber have the same company operating here. They want to be able to work things so they get the benefit on both sides of the border.

Much more is involved in this than a simple trade deal. Quite frankly, the basic principle we have to abide by is that as a country we should be able to produce a product and the provinces should be able to put in place whatever practices they want. We should not have to worry about the bullying by Americans just because they want things done in a way that will benefit them the most. They actually do not want inexpensive lumber going across the border because it will bring down their prices, which will result in large lumber companies in the U.S. losing out.

However, those companies that would benefit, as another colleague mentioned in the House, are organizations in the U.S. that are fighting for affordable homes. The nerve of a group in the U.S. to have a lobbying group to try and get affordable housing for the people in the U.S.

That group is one of our biggest allies in Canada in being able to continue with their business. The Government of Canada has not been our ally. The government has been looking at ways to change everything to satisfy the U.S., instead of standing firm and saying that as a nation we can do business.

I recognize that the Americans are our neighbours and friends but we do not want an in our face kind of attitude all the time. I was extremely pleased to hear Senator Kerry, a Democrat and U.S. presidential candidate, say that the U.S. had not been fair and done good by its northern neighbour, and that has to change.

His comment was a recognition that not all Americans are happy with the way the U.S., under the present government, has done business with Canada. It has been bullying in the area of softwood lumber and even in the crisis in the beef industry. This type of an approach has appalled a lot of Americans.

What do members think beef prices are like in the U.S. now that they cannot buy Canadian beef? Last summer a New York paper stated that it did not expect the beef issue to be settled because it would lower the price of beef in the U.S. This type of practice has been taking place for centuries. The bottom line is that it is annoying when a country suggests that it wants free trade but then puts in place roadblocks every step of the way.

I acknowledge my colleague's motion as being an effort to resolve a situation but what we need is a firm commitment by the government to stand behind our Canadian industry as we see fit as a nation as to how it should be. We need the government to put in place good enough supports for the industry.

If we had a national housing policy and a real all out effort to get behind it, it would not have saved the industry or accomplished everything that needed to be accomplished, but it would have given the industry much needed support.

I heard someone say that $350 million had been given to the industry. That is a lot of money, and I acknowledge that, but when I compare the boasting of $350 million to $100 million being wasted over an ad situation, it brings it into perspective. We can waste $100 million here and we will only be given $350 million there. That is when it is not acceptable.

We must put our priorities in line and it is time the government either got those priorities in line or packed it in.

[Transport Canada, April 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, passenger rail is one of the most energy efficient and environmentally friendly modes of travel.

If we had federal support for rail service, including high speed rail, in the densely populated area of the Quebec-Windsor corridor, three million vehicles could be taken off the road annually. That is 16.8 million tonnes less in CO

2

emissions each year.

If the government is truly committed to the environment and the Kyoto agreement, why has it cut funding to passenger rail service?

[Health, April 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the word Liberal was not the only thing left out of the Prime Minister's ads on health care released yesterday. Where is credibility, or is this the latest Liberal ad scam?

After 11 years of Liberal promises on health care, we have no home care program, no pharmacare program, privatization is on the rise, and the provinces are struggling to survive.

When will the Liberal government stop putting image over substance and give Canadians the real health care system for which they have been asking? After 11 years of broken promises, how can the Liberals say health care is a priority?

[Food and Drugs Act, March 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge that I also received a number of letters from restaurateurs and I recognize that there is concern within the industry that this type of bill would make it too costly to operate.

I do not want to suggest that this happened because it was all men reading the letters, but as I listened to the comments being made by my colleagues about the numerous choices for pizza or whatever item was being ordered, all I could think of was that it was pretty simple. We would have so many ounces that would have so many calories and we would just figure that out. They would only have to show how much each ounce had and we could work it out. We would not have to have the two mile long menu board.

I think we are taking the right tact by referring the bill to committee where we can have discussions and we can listen to the concerns of the restaurant industry to see if there are ways to alleviate their concerns. At the same time, we would be responding to the need that Canadians have to find out what is in the food they are eating. As responsible politicians we should be promoting a healthy lifestyle and we should be providing people with the opportunity to meet that healthy lifestyle while still supporting restaurants.

My colleague from Calgary Southeast mentioned Subway. When I go to a Subway it has it marked how much things are, which is great. As a result, I have a greater tendency to go there. Harvey's was mentioned. Harvey's offers a grilled chicken and people can substitute the salad for the fries.

Restaurants are making efforts because they recognize that Canadians want to live a healthy lifestyle. I think this bill is the extra incentive to provide a bit more information that will benefit all Canadians.

[The Budget, March 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of comments. It was great to hear a rather artistic portrayal of the early years in Canada's history but I would like to bring my colleague a little closer to what is really happening with the budget.

She mentioned the 100% increase in the urban aboriginal strategy, from $25 million to $50 million, which certainly was much needed. However I wonder how much more could have been done for urban aboriginals, as well as other people throughout Canada, whether it was the need for affordable housing, had we also had the $100 million that was wasted in the scandal that took place.

I would ask the member to put those two figures together, the $100 million wasted in the sponsorship scandal compared to praising themselves for putting another $25 million into an urban aboriginal strategy. Something is wrong with the government's set of priorities and when Liberals feel they need to be cheerleaders for themselves.

Would my colleague also comment on how it is seen as an enhancement of the health care system when the federal government went from providing the provinces with 50% of the cost of health care services to providing 16% of the cost of the services? Does the member, yes or no, support for profit health service providers?

[The Budget, March 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reflect back to the comment by my colleague from Toronto--Danforth. He said that he was dumbfounded. There was certainly a true representation of that in his last comments.

Nowhere on God's green earth have the New Democratic members or the party ever said that there should not be a fair taxation system. Nowhere have we said that business should have to pay everything. What we ask for is a fair taxation system. When everyday ordinary people are bearing the brunt of things and a member across the way is saying to get rid of all the taxes for all the businesses, that it will make things so much better, that is the most ridiculous position I have ever heard.

[The Budget, March 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of fairly straightforward questions for my colleague.

She indicated that the federal government was paying 40% of the health care costs in the country. I wonder if she could respond to the fact that all the premiers, as well as New Democrats, know that figure is really only 16%. Perhaps she could acknowledge for the Canadian public that if she is using a figure of 40% that she might be including other social transfers to the provinces in with the health care spending, which is, I believe, a bit misleading for Canadians.

As well, on the income tax exemption for soldiers in conflict areas, would the member care to answer a question, which the minister refused to answer today, as to whether the exemption will apply to all members of the armed forces, the air force, the civilian units or whatever, who are fighting in conflict areas, or if it will only apply--

[The Budget, March 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the question for the member for Burnaby—Douglas. I will indicate that as New Democrats we believe in the right of self-determination for Quebeckers and for first nations. However, we also believe in a unified Canada. In the scope of recognizing the right of self-determination, there are a good many of us who will do our darndest to promote a unified Canada.

[The Budget, March 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, there is certainly no objection to benefiting from one's research. I would suggest that there are probably a good number of scientists and researchers whose benefit is more than just the almighty dollar and the commercialization of the product.

My concern over the government taking this course is that it has become solely focused on the commercialization aspect. I have sat in on numerous industry committee meetings where we talked about all this stuff. I was extremely disappointed that as a nation this was becoming our major focus, instead of supporting scientists and researchers who want to do their work for the benefit of humankind.

I think of the scientists of years ago: Banting, Best, Salk and all the ones we were taught about as we were growing up. Their commitment was for the improvement of humankind. I am sure many of us would speak very highly of them forever on.

We had a situation where it was no longer commercially beneficial to produce a certain type of insulin, so the companies quit making it. It was the first insulin produced here in Canada. The company had been sold off, so it quit making it. Therefore, the individuals who wanted it could not get it. They were forced to go to another kind that did not work as well with their systems. This was done because it was not commercially beneficial. That is the problem with a sole focus.

I do not suggest for one moment that research should not have an opportunity to benefit; however, I have listened to a number of researchers who really do not want to go that route, but they are forced into that route. Otherwise, they will not get the assistance they need to do their research. That is an issue.

When the government is going to put taxpayers' dollars into these projects, there should not be the sole intent of a commercialization of the product. That is what the issue is about.

[The Budget, March 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate on the budget.

It would have been nice right before an election to have a budget with which we could go into the election saying that we cannot trust the Liberals to keep their promises, that they will never follow through on what is in the budget. That is just the way the government is before the election.

However, I have to admit that I was greatly shocked, simply because I am used to the usual Liberal way of doing things. They will talk from a social perspective, much like the Prime Minister did in the throne speech, that everything is wonderful and they are going to do all these things and they make all these promises. The Prime Minister could not do it in the budget. Something must have caught his conscience and he said, “I do not know if my corporate friends will support me in the next election if I do not follow true to them.”

Quite frankly, going into an election, I am pleased with the budget. I am darn pleased. After the election if he came forward with the usual kind of budget which gave everything, of course we would cheer. This was quite an interesting twist to things. I hope Canadians realize that if the Prime Minister, a month after the throne speech, could not follow through on a promise, then they had better not plan on the Prime Minister following through on any of the promises he was making on the side to people all throughout his leadership campaign.

I am sure he is even doing it now saying, “I could not put it in the budget right now because it would have looked bad. I am still going to make sure people get this and this”. I think we all expect that is what the Prime Minister is doing out there.

This is a budget that reflects the government's lack of priorities. It reflects the government's lack of vision. The budget reflects a government that is so out of touch with the people of Canada that it is incredible.

The Prime Minister probably travelled throughout Canada on his leadership campaign and spoke to a good number of Canadians. It is quite apparent which Canadians he spoke with, but he should have got a fair idea of what Canadians wanted and it is not there.

Let us follow up on the issue of health which the member for Burnaby—Douglas mentioned, which is the number one priority of Canadians. If there is anyone in the House who is willing to stand up and say Canadians do not consider health care to be their number one priority, then they should stand up and be counted because they are out of touch with Canadians as well. Health is the number one priority.

Canadians understand that the dollars have to be there to pay for the services. They understand that. Quite frankly, to my colleague from across the way, the secretary of state for privatization, we fully understand that. We did in Saskatchewan in the early years of medicare and we have continued to do that. In the province of Manitoba we want to make sure that the funding is there so that we can follow through.

Canadians want the dollars put into the budget for health care. They want to have a stable economy. They want us to have the money to support additional programs, but with a government that would finagle with putting over $200 million into Liberal patronage funds, it does not care about Canadians. The government does not care about Canadians and about ensuring that the dollars are there. The Liberals are just looking out for, not even 40 acres, probably it is about two acres as it is just that little group of whoever is around the minister of the day.

Canadians want to see the dollars go into health care, as do we. They want to see an overview of the system. Where changes to the management can be made to improve the system, let us do it. Canadians want the money to go into health care. Canadians want a not for profit health care system. Canadians absolutely do not want someone profiting from the ill health of someone else. The government's shameful example is not acceptable.

I want to also mention the situation with aboriginal health. The aboriginals are the most vulnerable group within our country because of the conditions they have been forced to live in, as a result of government policy over the years. It put them on reserves with inadequate housing, inadequate water and sewers and a lack of amenities that would be necessities in any white community.

I am going to say it because it is darn well true, the amenities in any white community were not put into the aboriginal communities for which the federal government is responsible, and it was a number of federal governments. The result within those communities has been poverty, poor living conditions and ill health within the communities.

There is something I recently found out. First nations should get their health care provided just like the rest of us. They have what they call non-insured health benefits. Any one of us can pick up an insurance policy to get some extra benefits. Everything that is covered by medicare gets paid by medicare. It is the insurer of last resort for those things that one is covered for. I want to talk about what Health Canada is doing to aboriginal people.

Assume that an aboriginal person would get an insurance policy to cover him or her for those additional things. Individual first nations members would pay for it themselves. In case anyone thinks it is coming out of the taxpayers' pockets, it is not. Individual first nations members pay for it. What does Health Canada tell them? They are told that the insurer has to pay for all of the individual's health care, and they operate differently. The most vulnerable people in our society are being treated like that by the government. It is not acceptable.

The government spouts off about all the dollars it is putting into education and research. Let us hear a really important part of this which maybe the government passed over, or maybe Canadians did not hear. It is additional funding to improve the capacity for the commercialization at universities, hospitals and other research facilities. We wonder why we get nervous when there is a secretary of state for privatization, when one of the government's major goals is the commercialization of universities and research.

Tell me, how much commercial profit is there if someone has an illness that only deals with maybe a small percentage of the population and drug companies are not going to make a profit by treating them? Do we think any effort is going to be made to find improvements for that condition, to find aids to assist with it and to do the research? If there is no commercial profit, do we think that is going to happen?

That is why a focus on the commercialization of universities and research is not acceptable. It is a disgusting vision for any nation, that all we would be looking at is the commercialization and that it would be espoused as something great.

This has been mentioned already, the broken promise, and it is happening to communities and cities with the gas tax. I hope people do not lose sight of that because if it was not in this budget, we are not going to see it, and anyone who believes the Prime Minister is really off in another realm.

The GST rebate is very commendable but it would make more sense to not have municipalities have to pay it in the first place. Is there not a way of putting in place a system where municipalities are registered as GST exempt for certain products so they do not have to pay it?

Why would we put in place a whole rebate system where we say that something is not covered anymore or that they will have to pay it on something else further down the road? It would make a lot more sense for municipalities and for that matter school boards and other educational institutions, not to have to pay it.

The government was very proud of its commitment to education, proud of ensuring that it is forcing students to have an even greater debt load in order to get their education.

A simple thing would have been to provide funding to keep tuition fees down. We can forget all the fancy little tricks that were put in where people get a certain amount of money if they have a child under a certain age, as long as they are not getting the national child tax credit in that family, then they will get a certain amount, all these little loopholes.

The Prime Minister as finance minister found all the loopholes he possibly could in the tax system, but we had hoped that there could have been a whole lot more vision and commitment for Canadians.

My colleague from Burnaby—Douglas also mentioned the failure to aboriginal people and there is no question about that. That was a real disappointment. The Prime Minister had gone around saying that he was going to be there for us. He did not last a month before he turned his back on the aboriginal people of Canada, once again. I hope they will not let the Prime Minister get away with it.