Bev Desjarlais

[Pensions, April 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in 1995 the Liberal government used the turbot war with Spain as a smokescreen for the devastating changes to EI. These changes have made it possible for the Liberal government to rip off $26 billion from Canadian workers. Now the Liberal government is using the war in Kosovo as a smokescreen for the $30 billion rip-off of pensioners.

Canadians whose pensions are affected by Bill C-78 deserve to have their voices heard. Will the President of the Treasury Board agree to have cross-country consultations, or is the Liberal government intent on ramming this bill through parliament while the war in Kosovo still provides a convenient cover?

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, April 26th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, in response to the member's answer and his position that the issue in the bill is to improve the benefits for the pensioners, why are we not reinvesting the surplus and improving the pension benefits to those women who have been in the service for 20 years and will get $9,600 a year in pension? Why are we not doing that? Why are we taking that money out and using it to make the government look like it has a surplus and is doing a great job with our finances?

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, April 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I want the member for St. Albert to clarify something.

He mentioned that the government is no longer paying interest on the surplus, but over the years it did do that. As a result, the money that was supposed to be set aside for pensions increased. While the government was considering that amount to be part of Canada's deficit, that it was money owed, it is now considering that same money to be part of a surplus that it will now use to offset the deficit. Does the member find the government's approach in its bookkeeping a little strange?

[Pensions, April 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the human resource minister does not care if EI changes have hit women the hardest.

Women are also the biggest losers in the government's pension plan grab. There are women who have worked for 20 years and receive less than $10,000 a year in pension. Now the finance minister says “I want their pension surplus”. Does the government have no shame?

The pension surplus grab is at the expense of seniors, RCMP members and military personnel, government workers who have served our country for years. They are taxpayers. Money they receive is spent in their communities. Why is the government taking it away?

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, April 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the bill on behalf of my caucus and specifically on behalf of our environmental spokesperson, my hon. colleague from Churchill River in Saskatchewan.

I thank the member for Simcoe—Grey for bringing the hazards of lead sinker and jig use to the attention of the House. He is quite correct that giving it focus at this level should create greater concern and moves to deter and ban the use of such products. I acknowledge that the bill has not been deemed votable and therefore will not see the results that it so desired. I was somewhat disappointed that he was willing to let the government bureaucracy run its course without a much greater fight. When it goes through the government bureaucracy that in many cases means no action and ultimately no concrete results.

Rather than getting into a number of the facts we have listened to this evening, I do not think there is any question from what we have heard that there is a problem with the use of lead in a number of products when they continue through the food chain, going through fish and birds and then on to humans, something that has not been mentioned this evening unless I missed it. There are consequences for animals and fish but they also travel through the food chain.

Let us get on with encouraging anglers to use other products and let us be clear there are other products. Bismuth and high density plastic products are available so it is not as if there is not something there. I recognize that anglers may see a minimal increase in cost and that some anglers prefer to make their own sinkers and jigs. In the whole context the hazards outweigh the benefits and we should be going to the other products.

I do not need a lengthy study to convince me of the hazards. I do not think we have to go through that whole process again with fish. When we see that a substance causes cancer in rats, do we try the product on humans or on other animals to see if it will cause cancer as well? I do not think so. Countless studies prove lead is a deadly toxic substance. As indicated previously, it has been removed from paint and other products including gasoline.

It is in the form of gasoline that I personally saw adults, young children and infants affected. Gas sniffing was a serious problem in some northern Manitoba communities. When lead was a gas additive the consequences were very apparent. A good number of members may not have seen four year old children die as a result of gas sniffing, all as a result of the lead in the gas.

I do not need to be convinced. I would encourage the committee to continue its review of this matter and encourage the environment minister to proceed with a ban of lead products. I am not willing to get caught up in the federal-provincial issue. I would find it hard to believe that provincial governments would not accept this as an environmental hazard and see it in the same light. I hope we pursue a ban at the federal level.

[Criminal Code, April 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, just for clarification, was that Bill C-79 or Bill C-69 the member was referring to?

[Judy Cook, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in December last year, Manitoba lost a great person. Judy Cook died while awaiting a heart transplant. She had dedicated her life to social justice and to improving the lives of others.

In December a steelworker from Leaf Rapids was given a new lease on life when a friend from Leaf Rapids donated one of her kidneys.

It is well established that the organ donation situation in Canada is serious with our organ donor rate among the lowest in the western world. Currently, there are more than 3,000 Canadians waiting for solid organ transplants, yet less than half of these will get an organ they need before the year's end. Lives are being lost and the costs related to waiting are increasing, and federal regulations are at the heart of the problem.

The need to increase the organ donation rate in Canada is an urgent priority. It will not happen by focusing only on public education and improved hospital systems. It requires innovative and proactive approaches starting with a national registry of organ donors to increase the pool of potential donors and a clear simple mechanism for expressing wishes.

It is important to give Canadians the opportunity to say, “Yes, I want to donate”.

[Sagkeeng First Nation, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Sagkeeng First Nation in Manitoba has been devastated by a supreme court decision to take a four year old boy away from his biological grandfather and give custody to his adopted grandparents in Connecticut.

The grandfather did not lose custody for neglect. The court based its decision on money. The Sagkeeng man lost custody because he is poor and the American couple is rich.

Discrimination on the basis of money or social condition is unacceptable to Canadians. Incredibly, this kind of discrimination is not illegal in Canada.

Two days ago the Liberal government had a chance to make sure that what happened in Sagkeeng would never happen again. Shockingly, it voted down Bill S-11, a bill that would have outlawed discrimination on the basis of social condition. Instead of standing up for the people of Sagkeeng and aboriginal children everywhere, the minister of Indian affairs and her parliamentary secretary from Manitoba chose to toe the Liberal government's line.

This is yet another betrayal by the Liberal government.

[Kosovo, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

The minister has indicated in the media and in the House that persons fleeing Kosovo with families in Canada will be welcomed. Could she share with us as to how this is to happen? My office has been trying to get assistance for two families in my riding and has been told on more than one occasion that these families have to go through the usual process of application.

[Transit Passes, March 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity at least for a few minutes to comment on Motion No. 360 by my colleague from Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys. I will just make a couple of key points.

I certainly support his motion and whatever we can do to encourage a public transit system, get people off of the roads. Certainly as someone not in a huge urban area, I have no problem acknowledging that if larger urban centres can put something in place to have fewer vehicles on the roads, decrease emissions within their areas, we can have some kind of benefits such as a tax exempt bus pass benefit.

As the member for Mississauga South indicated, there is not equality throughout the system. Northerners have a northern remoteness allowance and we get a tax exempt status for remoteness in some areas. It acknowledges that Canadians recognize there is diversity and we need to reflect that in the actions we take.

Seventy-three per cent of Canadians are in favour of this type of legislation. I think the comment that it is already taking place in a pilot project in Ottawa is an indication that there is certainly support for this type of a program within Canada. Canada needs to work very hard in meeting its Kyoto commitments. This is certainly one way of doing that. The number of large urban centres that would put this type of a practice in place could certainly go a long way to helping Canada reduce its emissions and meet those Kyoto commitments.

I want to thank the House for these few minutes. I commend my hon. colleague. Hopefully the House will support the motion unanimously.