Val Meredith

[Health, September 25th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, we need more doctors. We need more specialists. We need more nurses. We need more hospital beds. What do the Liberals give us? They give us more advertising.

When will the government put a priority on health care rather than on its public relations exercises?

[Health, September 25th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has finally made a commitment to return some of the money that it removed from health care but it still cannot get its priorities straight. Although the Liberals will not be increasing the transfers for health and social services until next year, they have lots of money to advertise how wonderful they are at spending taxpayers' money on health care.

Can the minister please explain why the government is spending money on advertising and not on health care?

[1911 Census Records, September 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Motion No. 160 on behalf of my colleague from Calgary.

To many, this issue of sealing the 1911 census information forever does not seem like a very important issue and think that maybe the House should spend its time in other areas, but it does raise a concern for a number of people and several of my constituents who have contacted me.

A number of individuals in our society take great delight in seeking information about their family history and look forward to the time when this information will be available to them so they can have a better understanding of their roots in Canada. It was because of an individual who was very concerned in 1906 and again in 1918 that this information could be used for purposes that were not necessarily considered to be good purposes, that they felt for privacy they needed to seal the records.

At that time it probably made sense but that was 85 years ago. Many of the laws on our books have now become redundant. The concern for privacy and respecting the privacy of an individual is a good one and should be considered, but when this information becomes of an age and is no longer current that need for privacy disappears.

Most of the people who would have this information in the 1911 census would be 75 years or older. Many of them are probably not even alive. The question of securing or protecting their privacy becomes less of an issue, if an issue at all.

The intent of the motion is to make an allowance and to perhaps put a timeframe on when this information would be made available, but certainly not to have all the census information from the 1911 census lost forever. That certainly was the concern of some of my constituents who contacted me on this issue. Their concern was that that information, even if they had to wait another 20 years, should be available to the families for historical purposes.

When other countries had to deal with this issue they set a year beyond which the person probably would not be living, although with today's technology it may be hard to put that to the number of years. In Australia and France the census data is released after 100 years. Denmark is saying that 65 years is adequate. The United Kingdom is making efforts to release its data after 100 years.

The precedents are being set internationally that maybe 100 years would be an adequate period of time that any information on an individual, if they lived beyond 100 years, which is very unlikely, at least for most of us, could not be used and harm that person.

With all due respect to an individual's privacy, there is a good cause for Motion No. 160 and for the concern that historians and people who are researching their family histories have, that we set a timeframe, perhaps 100 years. This law is actually 88 years old. Maybe that is time enough and we should say that as of the year 2000 this information will be made available.

Nevertheless, the indication is, from other countries that have dealt with this issue, that 100 years is adequate. In one case 65 years was considered adequate. I think Canada would be justified in putting the timeframe at 90 or 100 years, or whatever, into this legislation and then to redraft it.

We do have a number of statutes in our country that need to be overhauled. I think this certainly is one that has to be looked at and changed.

I think my hon. colleague is looking to all members of the House to support this motion, which states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take all necessary steps to release the 1911 census records once they have been deposited in the National Archives in 2003.

I certainly, on his behalf, request that members of the House support his motion.

[Government Spending, June 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is certainly an equal opportunity tax man. It does not matter whether people are rich or poor as long as he gets his money. Robin Hood used to take money from the rich to give to the poor. The finance minister takes money from the rich and the poor to give to the human resources minister.

Why should Canadian families give the government so much of their money so the finance minister can give it to the human resources minister for boondoggles?

[Government Spending, June 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister needs to remember that it is Canadian entrepreneurs and Canadian businesses that fuel the economy. It is the hard work of individual Canadians that provides not only family income but the government's income. There is a limit to their generosity. Government is confiscating more and delivering less. Worse, the Liberals do not even blink at a billion dollar bungle.

Perhaps the finance minister could tell Canadian families why he needs so much of their money.

[Airline Industry, June 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this is just another example of the government's duplicity. The Liberals say one thing for public consumption and do the exact opposite behind closed doors.

Government ministers can utilize the fleet of Challenger jets for their air travel but the average Canadian cannot. The public deserves to have an answer. Will the government permit a labour dispute at Air Canada to disrupt the travel plans of Canadians this summer?

[Airline Industry, June 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government was extremely indignant when the official opposition raised concerns about a potential strike at Air Canada. The parliamentary secretary stated that my concern was premature because in her words, “there will be a negotiated settlement.”

If the government is so confident that there will be a negotiated settlement, why at the very moment when it was criticizing the opposition for raising this issue the government was in fact drafting legislation to block a strike?

[Airline Industry, June 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, now that Air Canada controls 85% of passenger airline service in this country, its importance to the Canadian economy is undeniable.

The minister is well aware that this is only one of many labour disputes facing Air Canada and its employees.

Why is the government prepared to allow Canada's economy to be threatened every time there is a labour-management dispute at Air Canada.

[Airline Industry, June 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is fine for government ministers who have access to a government plane when they need it, but a strike at Air Canada is a threat to the travel plans of thousands of Canadians. Canadians want to know that when they show up at the airport this summer the pilots will be in the cockpit, not on the picket line.

While everyone hopes for a negotiated settlement, is the government really prepared to see 85% of Canada's airline industry behind a picket line?

[Petitions, June 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to present before the House 40 pages of signatures from British Columbians who are calling upon parliament to urge the Minister of Health to establish a national organ donor registry. What a marvellous thing these people are asking for. I think the country requires this petition to move the government forward.