Bev Desjarlais

[The Budget, March 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge my colleague's commitment to culture. Curiously, she is praising the budget for putting the money back into culture, even though at some point she said that we had to look deep into the budget to find it. When I was out in the lobby I was thinking we might have to put a finder's fee in there to find that great investment in culture.

The hon. member has spoken accurately in the sense that culture does create jobs; it does create economic activity that brings in tax dollars. How does she feel, knowing that for the last number of years the finance minister, now turned Prime Minister, made severe cuts to that program? Why should we be here cheering now that the Liberals have passed one of the cuts when there are still a whole lot more out there? Why should we be cheering this when we should be giving a good slap on the hand for having made the cuts in the first place?

[Status of Women, March 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has once again chosen to balance the budget on the backs of women. As child care, health care and education continue to be inadequately funded, it is women's unpaid labour that has to make up the shortfall.

Women are the primary caregivers and when health care, education and child care fall short, women take on the responsibility. I think it is time the federal Liberal government accepted its responsibility.

What do women want? At our economic summit this February, women said loud and clear that they needed affordable child care, housing and adequate health care for themselves and their families. What did they get? Nothing.

How is the 25% GDP ratio supposed to help the mother who is trying to feed her child and save up so they can go to university? How is this mother going to put money into an RESP when she cannot afford food?

There is virtually nothing in the budget that touches on the unique situation of aboriginal women. Aboriginal women's groups have been calling on the federal government to recognize their unique challenges.

The Prime Minister acknowledged the shameful conditions in which aboriginal Canadians live. Yet there was nothing for native women's groups and nothing to improve the third world conditions in which many are forced to live.

If this is the Prime Minister's vision for women in Canada, he and all Liberals should hang their heads in shame.

[Supply, March 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for bringing that up. In the course of 10 minutes we cannot fit in everything we want to mention.

There is no question, the throne speech was only a verification of the government's failure to support a publicly funded, not for profit health care system. In the throne speech, the absolute commitment made by the Prime Minister was, “Corporations for profit, I am going to let them happen”.

The former prime minister, Mr. Chrétien, failed to implement Romanow in any way, shape or form. The present Prime Minister is no different. He has not come out and said that we are going to make sure that for profit can exist. There is no difference.

[Supply, March 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not have any problem in commenting on each and every one of those instances.

If there were dollars within the system to allow additional programs to be looked after through our health care system, I would say by all means we should be including them within a publicly provided, not for profit system.

As the originators of medicare in Saskatchewan maintained, we have to be able to support our social programs. We in the NDP believe that to this day. What is not acceptable is that under the Conservative government a change to patent legislation was initiated which has allowed the greatest increase in health care costs in this nation, if not everywhere and that is on pharmacare, on prescription drugs. The for profit companies, and I will say it, have literally colluded and ripped off Canadians, They have been fined for doing so.

The same companies are now arguing about not providing meds because of Internet services to the U.S. One of those companies was involved in a scandal that ripped off millions from consumers.

Yes, quite frankly, home care should be provided, ambulance services should be provided, pharmacare should be provided, if we can afford it. If that time comes we should be starting to move on those things. Certainly we should find a process to provide cheaper prescription drugs for seniors throughout this country. They fought for this country. Some paid with their lives. We are not promoting and supporting them and they did it for us.

[Supply, March 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but reflect on my colleague from the governing side who a few minutes earlier made a point that there was too much in the motion that could be worked around with and messed around with, suggesting that there were inaccuracies in the motion.

It is important that Canadians hear exactly the wording of the motion. So often they just hear our responses and we do not get the motion out there for people to really hear what is there. I want them to know what my colleague from the governing side was arguing with. Then, I want Canadians, if they question this motion, to check into it. I think they will find that everything within the motion is absolutely accurate and so we know who is not giving a responsible, credible answer from the governing side.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the Bloc for bringing the motion forward on its opposition day. Another point is to note that when the Bloc Quebecois can come into the House with a motion that is going to be supported, from what I understand, by pretty much all of the opposition parties, it says that we are speaking on an issue that is near and dear to Canadians, and we want to see things changed. This is something that all the provinces are unified on. The only group not unified is the governing side. The motion reads:

That, as the federal government's 16% contribution to health care spending is clearly inadequate, this House urge the government to invest at least half the current year's surplus in health care, over and above the $2 billion already promised, in order to achieve as rapidly as possible the stable 25% federal contribution called for by Quebec and the provinces.

What in that motion is inaccurate? As my colleague from Windsor has just noted, all the provinces, bar none, accept that the federal government is only putting 16% into health care. There was a point in time when it was even less than that, so there is only 16%.

The 25% that we are talking about is still half of what the federal government committed to medicare at the time of its introduction. What has been happening over the course of time is a slide backward with the federal government not accepting its responsibility in the partnership with the provinces. It has shirked its responsibility to the provinces and to Canadians.

As a result, the provinces have had to make cuts elsewhere to keep the dollars in health care so they can provide whatever services they can for their constituents. Other areas have suffered and the municipalities have had to pick up the slack, all as a result of the federal government not accepting its responsibility as part of the partnership.

There is no great mystery to this. When medicare came in, 50% was the agreed upon figure. We were going to do this half and half and each accept responsibility. Nowhere in the course of time, as the federal government was backing off from its responsibility, did I hear it tell us we would get back all those tax dollars because we had to take on the extra responsibility. Not a chance.

The federal government, first under the Tories and then continuing with the Liberals now for 10 years, has shirked its responsibility. It did not give increased dollars back to the provinces for health care. It continued to cut and kept the tax dollars. I do not want to remind Liberals but they misused and wasted those tax dollars in numerous instances as we have seen and then have said we cannot afford health care. That is not true.

Canadians are willing to support our medicare system. They strongly state they want a not for profit system. Health care is still the number one priority in Canada. I would be willing to say that probably 90-some per cent of Canadians want to see a not for profit system because they recognize no one should profit from health care.

I have listened to the Prime Minister time and time again say that nothing is being breached in the Canada Health Act. The Prime Minister has found the tax loopholes in our tax legislation. He has even put some loopholes in place so he can benefit or his companies can benefit, and some of his corporate friends can benefit. People have now found loopholes within the Canada Health Act to bring in for profit health care. It is not acceptable.

Canadians should not just ask the Prime Minister or the Liberals in the upcoming election if they support our medicare system. Do not ask them that. Canadians should ask them whether or not they are going to allow for profit health care. Let us get right down to the bones of the issue. Are they going to allow corporations to profit from someone's ill health?

I did not have the opportunity see the movie John Q until just a few weeks back. Quite frankly, I think it should be required watching for all members of Parliament, just to remind us of the sickness within a system that does not provide treatment because someone cannot afford it. There is a sickness in a system where for profits, under HMOs, do not provide services because people are not worth it, where we do not want to put the money into doing tests to ensure that they are going to be okay, where they are not valued enough that they deserve to have the same health care as everyone else because they do not have the money.

This is required reading for members while they are off, or if anyone has not seen John Q , take the time to watch it just to be reminded of the sickness of that kind of system, a system that will be pushed by the Liberal government.

Anyone, any group, or any party that does not come out strongly saying that they will not allow for profit health care in Canada does not believe in something that Canadians value dearly, and that is a not for profit medicare system.

The dollars are there. I do not think it is a matter of taxing Canadians more, quite frankly.

What it does mean is the federal government accepting its responsibility, accepting its share of the load, instead of pushing it on to the provinces who then push it on to the municipalities. Then, when things get tough, people say that they can afford this, so if they pay for it, then maybe they would get the treatment elsewhere. That whole system has proven false. It does not work.

There are numerous studies that indicate that for profit care does not provide better care. I will mention one case because we have so many cases of dialysis within my riding. Our aboriginal population, with the type of living conditions that it must put up with over the years and over the course of time, is not able to live in its traditional lifestyle. The dietary products that are there do not always promote a healthy lifestyle, and as a result, we have huge numbers of aboriginal people on dialysis.

A study comparing for profit and not for profit clinics in the U.S. found dialysis patients were more likely to die in a for profit clinic. That is a scary thing within a riding that has huge numbers of aboriginal people on dialysis. It is scary that the Prime Minister and the government are not coming out against for profit health care.

A good number of aboriginal people in my riding are going to be the victims of the government's policy on health care unless the Prime Minister, the cabinet, and Liberal members--and I hate to bring my colleagues from the Conservative Party into this but they do not often come out there saying they do not want not for profit either--are willing to take a stand. We are jeopardizing the lives of Canadians, and in the case of for profit dialysis, a number of first nations people in my riding. That is not acceptable.

In conclusion, I want to congratulate my colleagues from the Bloc. I encourage everyone, over the next week, to take the time to watch John Q and think about how shameful it would be if we were to allow that kind of system within Canada.

[Petitions, March 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of people who wish to have marriage maintained as the union of one man and one woman, again reflecting a vote that was taken here in the House of Commons in 1999.

[Supply, February 24th, 2004]

--Grant Devine runs in Souris—Moose Mountain, he should remember the 16 convictions. I think something like 11 people ended up in jail under the Conservatives in Saskatchewan.

What we are dealing with here today is the pension investments. As far as putting dollars into private health care, it is not the answer. We should have invested into the services that were needed. I can say that living in northern Manitoba I am quite aware of us not having all the services available in the north that they have in the south. We try to make the most cost effective utilization of the dollars that we have and try to make it work.

Under the New Democratic government in Manitoba now, we have been able to address some of the issues and improve the services, even to the point of where if there are spaces available in operating rooms in the north, they will actually bring people from the south to try to make the best utilization of services and making those services available to everyone.

It is not a perfect system and the reason the system got so bad throughout the nation, including B.C., was the result of numerous cuts over a length of time by the Liberal government under the present Prime Minister when he as finance minister. That was the start of it.

I am not suggesting that putting money into the system is the only answer, because it is not. However, way back in the early days when suggestions were being made on how to approach medicare, if the government of the day had listened to the NDP to set up community clinics, we would have had the preventive medicine in place and we would not be in some of the situations we are in now.

[Supply, February 24th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I actually take great pleasure in the fact that my colleague really could not criticize the aspects of the motion regarding ethical investment. What he had to do was bring up some issues that happened in B.C.

Just to counter that argument, I would suggest that when--

[Supply, February 24th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member reflected on a lot of issues that I do know about and which I have great concerns about. There is a need for ethical investment.

I will respond to the last question about Canadians who feel they are paying too many taxes. When we include taxes and CPP, I have a hard time with that, quite frankly. When constituents talk about CPP or EI and not getting money back, I always remind them that it is a pension plan or an insurance policy. The money that people pay is deducted off their income taxes, which is a plus right there.

I do not see it in the same way. It is by far the most reasonable pension plan investment we can make. We will not get a pension plan at that cost anywhere. We will not get a privatized plan at that cost and get the kind of benefits we get from CPP. I would like it to be better, but it is not there.

People just a bit older than I had the real challenge of fighting very hard for some of these programs. I had the benefit of all of them. I have said this before. I have had the benefit of a pension plan, health care, maternity benefits, education and support for my children. I have had those benefits and I did not have to fight for them. As a result, Canadians forget how much those things cost. They forget that sometimes, because of this attitude from the reform, alliance and now it is the Conservatives that we are spending all this money and we are not getting anything.

I suggest to each and every Canadians to do what I did. I had three children. They went through 12 years of school. Their health care was provided. We had our roads and all those things. Canadians should break that down into what they would be paying if they were paying a privatized company for those things.

I got my dollar's worth out of my tax dollars and I think all Canadians will. I do not begrudge my taxes because I have benefited from them. I believe most Canadians feel that way. They want to pay their own share. It is when there is abuse of tax dollars that it becomes a problem. When we see some corporations making huge amounts of money and not paying any taxes, that is when it is a problem. However most Canadians do not mind paying their fair share.

[Supply, February 24th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to have little more time to speak on our motion today. Heaven knows there has certainly been enough fodder going around throughout the day that I will be able to reply to a good number of points.

The New Democratic Party and the majority of Canadians want to see responsible investments through the Canada pension fund. The majority of Canadians, if not a very large majority, absolutely support the Canada pension plan. In most cases, it is the only pension that a good number of Canadians will receive because they have not made the dollars to put additional money into RRSPs. It is the pension of choice because it is the only pension there for them. They may receive CPP and then OAS on top of it simply because of the nature of the dollars they are going to receive.

We strongly support the Canada pension plan. As a result we want to see it survive. We do not want to see it wiped out.

In no way would we suggest that we put in place an investment policy that would not support the pension plan. That is foolishness. I can tell the House that even though my colleagues in the Conservative Party will say that the NDP is tax and spend and waste money, the reality is not so.

I suggest that those members get back to their history classes and do some real studying on exactly how the debt has been incurred. The debt was not put there by the New Democratic Party. They need only look at the federal government and the fact that Liberals and Conservatives have been the governments, and we are in debt. It was not because of the NDP.

I say to them that they should be reasonable in their assessment of things and be honest with Canadians because it is not accurate. Where we have been at fault, we will accept responsibility. However, on the whole tax and spend attitude and the wasting of taxpayers' dollars, it is just not the case. I want Canadians to understand that we do not want to see a problem with the Canada pension plan. We want to see it supported.

There is documented proof that ethical funds could be profitable. In the documents prepared by the Library of Parliament with regard to the Canada pension plan, ethical funds can be supported. It summarizes the fact that they do not make any more money or do not lose any more money than investing otherwise. Therefore, it is possible to have ethical investments.

I know we can get into arguments about what is ethical and what is not, what is based on religious views, and what is based on one person's interpretation of a social justice or a social conscience issue. However, I am sure that we can come to an understanding as to what is okay to invest in and what is not. In those areas where we do not come to an understanding, then we do not go that route.

We recognize that pension dollars should not be invested in companies that are producing landmines. We have a treaty that says we should not be doing that. It is reasonable to suggest that we should not be investing in companies that use child labour in other countries.

I would like to think that we do not have child labour in Canada, but heaven forbid, if that were the case, I would hate to see money invested there. Certainly, in other countries where it is hard to control those things, it does happen. If we know it is happening, then we should not be investing in those companies.

One of my colleagues said that when Talisman moved out of Sudan, it moved under pressure because its stocks were dropping. A company is there now and we do not know what it is doing. Here is the reality. We do not know what it is doing but the Canada pension plan could be investing in that company. Does that seem reasonable? Talisman moved out because it was getting pressure, but somehow it is now okay for the Canada pension plan to invest in a company that might be doing the same thing. I am not suggesting it is, but if the proof were to come out, would we be saying that it is okay? I do not think that is acceptable.

I mentioned earlier that cloning is not allowed in Canada. There is a law against cloning; however, we have the Canada pension plan investing in companies that are doing cloning. How is that right? What about a situation where we do not allow the sale of organs within Canada and we have a company in China that is organizing the sale of organs, should Canada's pension plan be able to invest in that company?

Those are the things we are talking about. We are not for one second suggesting that just because I, as a New Democrat, have certain issues with a particular company that there should not be any investment. That is not the case. We generally know that there are some companies out there that are doing illegal things.

Wal-Mart comes to mind. Wal-Mart, in the U.S., knew that it had a number of illegal workers working in its stores. There is proof; it was in the papers. It was documented and investigated through the immigration department in the U.S. which laid charges. It found that Wal-Mart had up to 300 workers who were not registered workers in the company. That is a wonderful company, right?

It is a good, community-minded company here in Canada, supporting teams and handing out Mac certificates. However, it had 300 illegal workers that it was hiring on contract through private firms and paying them less than the minimum wage. Wal-Mart knew and there is documented evidence. Should the Canada pension plan be investing in Wal-Mart? It does not have to, of course. Wal-Mart makes a fortune even though it has been criticized at some point for using products that come from unscrupulous areas and people make a conscious decision whether or not they are going to support Wal-Mart, or whoever.

That is just a general example, but we know that there are companies that are doing things wrong and they do not respond to public pressure. I do not see anything wrong with suggesting to members that if we want to know whether or not Canadians support it, we should ask them. We should ask them to indicate it.

We do tax assessments every year and StatsCanada does surveys. I just went through another StatsCanada three-quarter hour long phone call. We all kind of cringe and I will cringe even more when Lockheed Martin will be doing them. I may not even do it then, but I sat on the couch and did the StatsCanada survey. Maybe we should ask Canadians if they think their pension plan dollars should be spent in ethical investments. Do they think it is okay to invest in companies that build landmines? Do they think it is okay to invest in tobacco companies that are using the tobacco to encourage smoking?

A colleague from across the way, the member for London--Fanshawe, suggested that the situation in Mexico was much better, that we had criticized the Maquiladoras and the whole bit, and somehow it was much better for Mexican workers. I have spoken to those workers and it is not better. There may be more jobs out there and maybe more people are working in some rather nasty situations, but overall, it is not better. There have not been great improvements in South America either. That is why some countries in South America are not open to this whole trade deal because they are concerned about it.

A comment was made about members of the Canada investment board and that these are credible people, people who know about investments and business, and about doing the right thing. They are business minded people. Well, the executives of Enron and Worldcom were business minded people and what did they do? What did those really credible businessmen do who were above reproach because they were executives and business people who knew about investments? They ripped off pensioners. No one is above that. Values and principles are important; ethical investments are important. It is not okay to be doing that. Canadians expect more.

I say to my colleagues from the Conservative Party, they swear up and down that everybody just wants to make a buck out there. The people I know would be sickened to know that their pension dollars were supporting some of the things we talked about here today.

People would be sickened to know that their pension dollars were supporting a company that, in this day and age, locked in its employees, that the place burned down and the employees were killed. Those things are still happening. We do not see it as we sit here in Ottawa and maybe we do not see it in Thompson, Manitoba, but I can say that it is still happening in some places, and possibly even in Canada. It is not acceptable.

We hear of the stories in other countries. We hear of the child labour, of young people pulled into prostitution and used in certain areas. A company could somehow be tied to that and is involved in pornography and that is okay? Are my colleagues from the Conservatives saying that it is okay that the Canada pension plan should invest in those companies if we know that they have been tied to this?

They are criticizing us for discussing this issue today because there is a really important issue out there and darn tootin' it is important. It is important that the government had a situation where taxpayers' dollars were being misused to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars; darned right it is important. It talks about an unethical approach, an approach with no values. It talks about no principles, using taxpayers' dollars without recognizing that people work day in and day out to make those dollars, to support their country and all the things we believe in.

We are being criticized because we are discussing this today because we want the support of a pension fund for ethical reasons. We have suggested different ways. We are not suggesting for one second that the plan be set up so that it would lose money. We do not want that. We support the plan wholeheartedly. We would never for one second suggest that we invest so that money is lost and we are not able to support the pension plan.

I would challenge the House, the government and my colleagues over there in the Conservative Party to look at what the investment would be if we invested in our communities instead of going into private partnerships with companies to make money off of building our roads, schools and hospitals. How about using those pension funds and maybe putting the dollars back into the pension fund instead of using a private company? Let us put it back. Let us make an investment in Canada. In that way we would get the work done as well and the taxpayers would not constantly be ripped off for more money strictly for profit rather than a commitment to our nation.

Our country was built because someone had a vision and said we would work together and that we would make it work. Somewhere along the way it was decided that we had to be able to make a profit off everything, that if we could not make a profit from it, it should not be allowed.

Now there is this push where hospitals will be built by private companies. We are going to pay to use the hospital and pay for privatized services because somebody wants to make a profit from health. We have a wonderful health system in Canada, a system that is viewed by people throughout the world as what they want. They want it because we have the best system where dollars are not wasted on excessive administration, on HMO costs and all those things.

Should we sell that out because some company is not able to make a profit by providing those services? That might be one of the values of the Conservatives, or of the government because I have not heard the Prime Minister say that he is going to oppose for profit health care. I have not heard that come out of his mouth but I hope Canadians have him commit before the next election. I hope they say, “Let us hear it once and for all Mr. Prime Minister. Do you support for profit health care, making a profit from someone's ill health?”

That is not what we are about. I am not going to feel any shame that I do not think it is okay to make a profit from ill health. I read a saying once that we rationed health care in Canada based on need and in the U.S. it was rationed based on greed. That is what it is about. It is about providing services for profit as compared to working together to provide it because people need it. That is what is important.

I hope my colleagues who have listened to the debate throughout the day will take the time to see that this is not just the NDP saying that it wants an ethical investment and it does not want an investment in this or that and it is just willy-nilly flapping all over the place without having checked into the facts. Ethical funds can be profitable.

Most investment companies will have an ethical segment. There are some people who, when they go to get their RRSPs, not even their CPP, will ask if the company has an ethical package. If the company does not, they may then decide to put their RRSP funds elsewhere.

There are people who maybe do not have to make a huge profit off their investment because they already have the tax deduction, so they are okay with not investing if it is not ethical. People can make those choices. I think people should have the right to make the choice.

If we went to the people who have paid into the Canada pension plan, or if Statistics Canada did a survey and found that 85% or 90% of Canadians wanted ethical investment, would it not be worthwhile to listen to Canadians? We listen to them in the polls. It is so important that we listen to everything that comes out in the polls. Why not listen to what Canadians tell us about ethical investments?

I come from western Canada and I will challenge my colleagues in the Conservative Party that the people in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta and B.C. will not think it is okay to invest in landmines. They will not think it is okay to invest in pornography. They will not think it is okay to invest in tobacco companies that induce children to smoke. I think they would be ashamed to hear their elected representatives say that it is okay to do that because they just want to make the most profit possible on the pension plan, without considering anything else. There is more to life than the dollar.

We benefit overall from having a clean environment and other services. In the costing of it, we probably ultimately would save money. I am quite comfortable in saying that. I would challenge anyone to show me differently. I would challenge them to show me how investing in our future, in a clean environment, in healthy living, how that would not ultimately save us money as a country. It is not okay to just say it is an NDP issue and we are not going to listen to it. This is an important issue.

I was involved in the last discussions when changes were being made to the Canada pension plan. We pushed for having an ethical screening within the Canada pension plan. We tried at that point and did not get anywhere.

My colleague from Winnipeg Centre mentioned that it is not a matter of saying we cannot invest in anything. It is about changing a few guidelines and giving more flexibility. Right now even if the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board wanted to invest ethically because it saw that as a more important factor than investing in a tobacco company that was seducing children, the board could not do that because it would not get the best return on profit.

I watched a program years ago. It could have been just a show that was made up, but it talked about World War II and how the British were somehow investing in the rockets the Germans were going to use to attack the British. It always stuck in my mind. That is the kind of attitude I am hearing today from my colleagues in the Conservative Party who say we cannot have an ethical screening if we are going to make money and we are only going to worry about making money. That is the extent of it, not the fact that it is going to be detrimental to our nation, or the world for that matter.

It is crucially important that we go beyond the rhetoric. I am not suggesting, nor are my colleagues in the NDP suggesting, that there be no profit from the Canada pension plan. We want to see it profit because we need those dollars to provide the pensions that we so rightly believe in for the majority of Canadians who only have the Canada pension plan. That is what we want to see happen.

I would encourage my colleagues to go beyond that. It may not seem important today, but in the future it will be. It will be important if we hear of a situation where the Canada pension plan has invested in something and it comes around and bites us in the butt, because that is the reality. I would encourage people to go beyond the rhetoric and get on with supporting a very good motion.