John Harvard

[Health Care System, October 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the hon. member from Newfoundland. I know that he is concerned about his constituents and his great province. I would like to address both his observations.

First, he started by suggesting that we as a government are not moving. I would suggest that we are moving, and I think we are moving rather expeditiously. Let me just put it this way. I think that a lot of the opposition members around here forget that we did provide, just less than 24 months ago, something more than $21 billion toward the health care system. I would consider that action.

We have the Romanow commission. The government has decided that it will not do this without a good strong study, without getting input from all Canadians. That is what Mr. Romanow has done and we will get that report in the month of November. As the health minister has already indicated, there will be a health ministers conference in January. Are we moving fast enough? Maybe not for the hon. member, maybe not for some other opposition critics, but I think we are moving as quickly as we can.

He wondered about equal treatment for smaller provinces, and Newfoundland and Labrador is certainly one, as least when it comes to population. Let me just point out one thing, because I have a set of figures in front of me. When it comes to the federal share of provincial health spending by province, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador ranks number two. The federal government shares 62% of all the health care spending in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Only Prince Edward Island exceeds that, at 68%. My own province, the Province of Manitoba, is down at 46%.

Of course the other thing when it comes to a Province like Newfoundland and Labrador, and the hon. member perhaps just forgot, is that we do have something called equalization payments. That is what equalization payments are all about: to address the financial abilities from one province to another. That is why Ontario does not get it. That is why Alberta does not get it . That is why, up until I guess recently, British Columbia did not get it. So we do have something to address the issue that the hon. member has just spoken about.

[Health Care System, October 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in this take note debate. I congratulate the government for scheduling it at this time. It is not only important to the health care system, but it is important to the country itself. Our health care system is one of the pillars of Canada. As the health care system goes, so does the country.

Over the next few minutes I would like to share some thoughts which I think reflect the thoughts, attitudes, and views of my constituents in Charleswood--St. James--Assiniboia. I also want to share some of my own thoughts and opinions on this very important matter. If I know my constituents quite well, I think many of my views will coincide quite remarkably with their views. I earnestly hope that I represent adequately and objectively the views of my constituents.

My constituents are not unlike all Canadians and it goes without saying that they have concerns about the health care system as we know it. The health care system that we know goes back to the 1960s. There is no doubt that over the last three plus decades our health care system has begun to show some wear and tear and it faces new challenges. There are more older Canadians than ever before. Canadians are living longer. Medical technologies are more comprehensive and more in number than ever before and they are also extremely expensive.

Our health care system faces enormous challenges. Some of the challenges did not exist 30 years ago, but they do now and they raise serious questions. That is naturally one of the reasons that the Kirby Senate committee has been studying the issue for the last three years. That is why Roy Romanow has been studying the issue for the last year or so. These are very important works that are underway. We heard from Senator Kirby last week and we expect to hear from Mr. Romanow in November.

This debate today is extremely timely. The health minister has indicated there will be a health ministers conference on this issue in the month of January.

My constituents certainly are concerned. Even though they are concerned, I think I can say without any equivocation and without any doubt in my mind at all, that they overwhelmingly support our health care system. They want a health care system that is publicly controlled. They want a health care system that is publicly owned. They want a health care system that is publicly administered. In other words, my constituents want a health care system that is much like the one we have now. Yes, it needs improvements but they want something like they have now. They certainly support the five principles of the Canada Health Act.

My constituents do not want to go back to the old days. There are many of us who remember what health care was like before the medicare system came to us in the 1960s. We do not want that kind of system.

Thirty-five or 40 years ago, there were many Canadian families who denied themselves necessary medical treatment because they simply could not afford it. We do not want that kind of a situation. We want a system that provides the needed care when the situation arises. That is very important.

It is interesting to note that polls indicate that those who have experienced the health care system, who have received service from it, are much more supportive of it than those who have never used it or who have used it extremely infrequently. That tells us something right there. I think those who have had this experience are in a better position to judge it. Others who have not perhaps are relying on perception. Sometimes perception, while it can be reality, is still very faulty.

Canadians, and certainly my constituents, cherish access to our health care system. That is their number one priority, besides naturally getting the kind of service and treatment they need. They consider it a right of citizenship. It is a right of citizenship. When they are sick, they do not want to be judged by their bank accounts; they want to be judged by their needs.

We all have to realize that at some time or another, whether we are young, middle aged or getting older, we all will need health care. Canadians want what might be called an egalitarian system. Certainly they want a level playing field. With all playing fields, there are good parts and perhaps some bad parts. We Canadians have decided that we want the level playing field, the good parts even with some of the bad parts. We will take the good parts with the bad parts.

My constituents certainly do not want anything to do with what is called queue jumping. They think it is inherently unfair. They do not believe that their fellow citizens should be able to reach into their pockets, certainly if they have deep pockets, to jump to the front of the line for service. With medicare having been around for as long as it has been, they feel that is fundamentally unfair and they do not want that.

It goes without saying that when it comes to health care, we all have to be involved, the rich and the poor. We have to be careful not to give any kind of support or comfort to those who would want to hive off a system of their own, a system for the rich. That would hurt our health care system. If that were allowed to happen, sooner or later it would lead to the political erosion of the system. To use the analogy of a motor vehicle, I want all of us riding in the same vehicle and if we can all ride in the front seat, so much the better. It is extremely important that we maintain that kind of a medicare system.

Those are some of the feelings and views held very passionately by my constituents in Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia. I certainly feel that the status quo is not an option. That there are these new challenges of Canadians living longer, more older Canadians than ever before, and expensive medical technologies, would suggest that the status quo is not an option.

That is one of the many reasons for the Kirby report in the Senate. That certainly is why the government headed by the Prime Minister decided to appoint Mr. Romanow to head a commission. I have no doubt that Mr. Romanow has done thorough work and that he will have a strong report that will generate a lot of debate. That is all well and good, but I think we can also expect from Mr. Romanow a fairly strong blueprint, a plan which, if enacted, or at least much of it, will lead to a better health care system for all Canadians.

As I said, the status quo is not an option. One of the things that concerns me is that we do not have enough information about what is going on inside the health care system. I am depending on Mr. Romanow to help us in that regard. As we seek solutions and improvements to the health care system, one thing we have to insist on is better outcomes. We have been somewhat complacent in that regard. To a great extent we have not been demanding enough. We must insist on better outcomes, better performance of the health care system.

For example, when it comes to a lack of information, I do not think we really know how the money is being spent in the provinces. As we know the federal government has a block fund. We provide block funding under the CHST to the provinces. We do not ask any questions. The money simply goes to the provinces.

I do not want to show any disrespect to the provinces. I am quite sure that in the main they try to spend the money responsibly, but the fact of the matter is we really do not know where that money is going. We should know where absolutely every nickel goes. We should not be satisfied with anything less than knowing where all that money goes.

I think it was a mistake on the part of the federal government several years ago to come up with block funding. I want the federal government to be a full participant in health care funding, but we should send health care money to the provinces and insist that they spend every nickel on health care and that none of it be bled away into some other areas of provincial budgets.

When it comes to outcomes, do we really know who is doing a good job, who is doing a mediocre job and who is doing a lousy job? I doubt it. I am sure that there is a range of knowledge and expertise in that area, but does the public really know who are the good doctors, who are the mediocre doctors and who perhaps should be given the pink slip? I am not here to cast aspersions on any doctor, but it goes without saying that it is humanly impossible for all doctors to be top performers. Some will be top performers. Some will be something less than top performers. We should know who is and who is not. We do not have that kind of information and we should have.

There has been a lot of bickering and political fighting going on between the provinces and the federal government over the past many years about health care. Maybe some of it is necessary, but I get the sense when I talk to my constituents that they are getting sick and tired of it. They want it to stop. They want us to fix the system wherever the fix is required. They are turned off by the bickering, the shouting and the screaming. They expect something better from us. There is enough blame to go around.

I am sure that we at this end, at the federal level, have made some mistakes but I think the provinces have too. I get the feeling from my vantage point in Ottawa that the provinces think it is in their political interests to band together and to attack us. It may work in some regard, but I think that overall it is hurting them. It certainly hurts us in Ottawa, but I think most of all it hurts the country's health care system and that we cannot afford. As politicians, we simply have to do a better job.

On the question of privatization, this is my opinion and I think it is the opinion of most of my constituents, that is, when it comes to core services there can be absolutely no privatization, none, zero. Would my constituents tolerate some privatization with respect to some supply and services on the periphery of the system? Yes. But when it comes to core services, I do not think for a moment that my constituents want anything to do with privatization. All we have to do is look at the situation in the United States. If privatization were as good as some people suggest, then we would just have to model our system after that of the United States. I do not think we would want to do that.

Let me say just a couple of things about the American system. This is not designed as American bashing, but the fact of the matter is that the American system is hugely costly. It is very costly. The Americans are spending almost 15% of their GDP on health care services. We in Canada spend a little under 10%. There is another thing, and I do not know why it is not mentioned more often. I know that here in Canada, and rightfully so, people get concerned about either a lack of beds or the long waiting lists. What about the Americans who have no health care at all, none? I have seen estimates that between 40 million and 50 million Americans have no health care at all. We do not want that kind of system. We do not want any risk whatsoever of our system being changed so that we would find ourselves drifting in that direction, none at all.

Let me say in closing that I welcome the Kirby report from the Senate, with Senator Kirby and his co-workers suggesting that another $5 billion be pumped into the system. I am not too sure whether that is necessary. I certainly respect his recommendation. I, for one, though, want to feel absolutely sure that this kind of extra expenditure is necessary. I am not going to give Mr. Kirby just a blank cheque in that regard.

The other thing is that I want this debate to continue. I think it is very important for all Canadians, because as the leader of the New Democratic Party said earlier today, let us keep the dream alive. This is the social program in Canada and we have to do absolutely everything in our power to maintain it and keep it performing at an extremely high level.

[Veterans' Week, October 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on Parliament Hill this morning the Minister of Veterans Affairs unveiled the Veterans' Week 2002 poster. Each year we set aside Veterans' Week, November 5 to 11, to remember and commemorate those who have served our country in times of peace and war.

This year's poster features Brendan Matthews, a high school student from Yellowknife who visited the gravesites of Canadian soldiers as part of the 85th anniversary of the battle of Vimy Ridge. The poster also features Sergeant Ernest Alvia “Smokey” Smith, a veteran of the second world war and Canada's only surviving Victoria Cross recipient; Joseph Meconse, a peacekeeping veteran; and Corporal Kim Burns, a still serving member of the Canadian Forces.

More than anyone, our veterans know the tragic costs of war. It remains as important as ever to demonstrate to veterans and peacekeepers our appreciation and gratitude for their service and sacrifice so that we may enjoy the many blessings of peace and freedom. Lest we forget.

[Regional Economic Development, October 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Western Economic Diversification. Next week is community futures development corporations week.

These agencies do some great work. The trouble is that much of the public do not know it. Would the minister tell the House what benefits these organizations provide for western Canadians?

[Justice, October 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the International Association of Prosecutors has awarded its Special Achievement Award to the joint federal and provincial prosecution team that successfully prosecuted 35 members of the Manitoba Warriors street gang. This was the first significant prosecution under the anti-gang legislation.

Also, it was the first time in Canadian history that a joint team of prosecutors from both the federal and a provincial government conducted a major case together. This kind of intergovernmental teamwork and the prosecutors' success convinced the International Association of Prosecutors to offer this prestigious award to the prosecutors involved.

Organized crime is indeed a global challenge, one that requires a global response. Governments, both foreign and domestic, must cooperate closely in partnership to fight this threat. The Manitoba Warriors prosecution is an eloquent example of this type of cooperative effort that will yield beneficial and fruitful results.

[Iraq, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member for Calgary Southeast, what bothers me is that he demonstrates absolutely no self-respect as a Canadian. I would think that the man from Calgary would stand up and exhibit some pride in Canada and instead of being a clone of Americans and a clone of their policy, that he would want some independent thought from Canadian policy-makers. No, just throw our lot in completely with the Americans.

I listened closely to the hon. gentleman from Calgary Southeast and not once did he ever mention the word consequence as the result of an invasion of Iraq.

Reasonable thinking people will conclude that there will be terrible consequences from a military action in Iraq but not once did that member mention the word consequence.

[Ronald Duhamel, October 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there is an ache in our hearts today. Members of the House have lost a true and valued friend in the death yesterday of Ron Duhamel who served as the member for Saint Boniface from 1988 to early 2002 when he was appointed to the Senate.

It was a privilege and honour to work alongside Ron for nearly 14 years. He had a deep passion for Canada and I witnessed that each and every day he worked on Parliament Hill. He cared about people and understood that government played a vital role in improving the human condition. That made him an outstanding parliamentarian and public servant.

I will never forget his decency, his humanity and his kindness. To know him was to love him. He will be greatly missed. May he rest in peace.

On behalf of my wife and myself, I wish to extend my heartfelt sympathy to the Duhamel family.

[Criminal Code, June 21st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-292, an act to amend the criminal code, selling wildlife.

I would like to take this opportunity to address some of the remarks made in the House of Commons on May 9 when this bill was debated. It is not helpful to the debate to suggest, as one hon. member did on that occasion, that anyone who does not support the bill is voting against saving wildlife.

The fact that illegal poaching is undesirable is not the issue. The issue is whether this bill in its present form is the most appropriate mechanism for addressing illegal poaching.

To answer this question it is necessary to identify the particular harm that is being addressed and then examine what it is about the current response to that harm which is lacking. For example, is the problem one of inadequate penalties in provincial wildlife regulatory schemes? If that is the problem, then the solution can be addressed in that context by provinces adjusting their penalty regimes so that the fines imposed do not become the cost of doing business for poachers.

If, on the other hand, the problem is that there is a gap in the law, it is necessary to identify the particular social harm that needs to be addressed. This in turn requires an assessment of whether the response required is one that in its essence is regulatory in nature or involves the creation of a true crime.

The Supreme Court of Canada has expressly recognized that common law has long acknowledged a distinction between truly criminal conduct and conduct otherwise lawful which is prohibited in the public interest. Mr. Justice Cory expounded upon this distinction further and stated:

Regulatory legislation involves a shift of emphasis from the protection of individual interests and the deterrence and punishment of acts involving moral fault to the protection of public and societal interests. While criminal offences are usually designed to condemn and punish past, inherently wrongful conduct, regulatory measures are generally directed to the prevention of future harm through the enforcement of minimum standards of conduct and care.

In her remarks on May 9, the sponsor of Bill C-292 suggested that the approach in her bill to selling wildlife is very similar to the way serious motor vehicle offences are handled. The hon. member went on to explain that the bill would give provincial authorities an opportunity to determine when something is serious enough and they want to have steeper and stiffer penalties to try to stop it from occurring.

With all due respect, it is not accurate to suggest that a rationale for creating a criminal code scheme in respect of selling wildlife is similar to the interplay between driving offences in provincial legislation and those outlined in the criminal code. For example, the offence in section 259 of the criminal code regarding the imposition of driving prohibition orders is not simply a provision that gives police access to higher penalties than those available in provincial legislation for driving while prohibited or disqualified.

The prohibition order provision in the criminal code has an independent rationale for its existence. It is logically related to sentencing objectives for a range of driving offences in the criminal code. These offences are not simply replicas of offences that exist in provincial legislation. The rationale for their existence is entirely consistent with parliament's exercise of its criminal law power. The offence of impaired driving causing death, for example, condemns morally blameworthy behaviour and addresses a well recognized social harm.

Bill C-292 does not have the appearance and elements of a true criminal law scheme. The scheme in Bill C-292 more closely resembles a regulatory scheme that is being proposed for inclusion in the criminal code. As noted by constitutional law expert, Professor Peter Hogg:

A criminal law ordinarily consists of a prohibition which is to be self-applied by the persons to whom it is addressed. There is not normally any intervention by an administrative agency or official prior to the application of the law.

In the context of the criminal code, the application of an offence provision, however, usually does not rely upon whether a licence to conduct the prohibited activity has been issued by a federal or provincial authority. In this regard, I note that Bill C-292 expressly provides that the offence provisions in respect of wildlife that is not a threatened or endangered species do not apply to persons who act in accordance with a licence issued pursuant to a federal or provincial statute or regulation.

Another feature of criminal code offences is that they almost always apply to everyone. It is extremely rare for the criminal code to specify exemptions for criminal liability in respect of particular offences. The exemptions set out in sections 204 to 207 inclusive of the criminal code relating to the gaming offences in part VII of the code, are a notable exception to the usual rule against exemptions. Nonetheless, it is extremely rare to specify exemptions that depend upon the exercise of discretion by a member of the executive branch of government.

Clause 447.8 of Bill C-292 states that the test for exercising this discretion is met “if, in the opinion of the Minister, the exemption is necessary or in the public interest”. This provision may be at risk of being challenged on a constitutional basis on the reasoning that the criteria are so subjective and general that they do not provide any real limits on the behaviour to be exempted. This feature is not at all typical of offence provisions in the criminal code.

It is also rare in the criminal code context to have a member of the executive confer with an advisory body in order to determine whether the subject matter of the offence, in this case wildlife, falls within a particular category. In this regard I note that subclauses 447.7(1) and 447.1(2) respectively give the Minister of the Environment the discretion to determine whether a species of wildlife is an endangered or threatened species.

Before making a designation of this nature, however, the Minister of the Environment must consult with the committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada. Again, this kind of provision is entirely in keeping with a regulatory scheme that has a broad, public welfare goal, such as preserving wildlife.

This brings me to another aspect of Bill C-292 which is not in keeping with the general approach to penalties in the criminal code. Bill C-292 sets out different maximum penalties for the offences in clause 447.2 depending upon whether the animal involved is wildlife as opposed to either a threatened or endangered species.

As I have just indicated, the determination of whether an animal is a threatened or endangered species would not be set out in the criminal code but would be set out in regulations and would be determined by the Minister of the Environment in consultation with a committee. Usually in the criminal code all the criteria for determining an applicable maximum penalty are set out in the criminal code itself.

Again, the more an offence provision moves away from determining penalties on the basis of the criminal culpability of the accused, the less likely it is to resemble a true criminal code offence.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that there is a distinction between the objectives of legislation and the mechanics of the legislation itself to achieve an objective. In respect of Bill C-292, I respectfully suggest that the objective of the bill is not entirely clear. It is not sufficient to simply suggest that illegal poaching is undesirable. I think the challenge is to determine what it is about the current response to illegal poaching that is problematic and then decide whether a response to this problem is most appropriately dealt with pursuant to parliament's exercise of its criminal law power. If so, I think more work needs to be done to ensure that the offences in Bill C-292 are more consistent with other provisions in the criminal code and do not conflict with other federal schemes which regulate wildlife.

I would like to thank hon. members for their attention on this important issue.

[Petitions, June 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition on behalf of about 60 residents of my riding of Charleswood--St. James--Assiniboia. These petitioners would like to bring to the attention of the House that the creation and use of child pornography is condemned by the clear majority of Canadians and that the courts, in the petitioners' opinions, have not applied the current child pornography law in a way which makes it clear that such exploitation of children will always be met with swift punishment.

Therefore, these petitioners call upon parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.

[G-8 Summit, June 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, next week on June 26 and 27 the Prime Minister will host the G-8 summit in the Kananaskis region of Alberta. This beautiful mountain setting will serve as the backdrop for discussions about how to solve global challenges including African development, economic growth and security issues.

The Prime Minister has taken a lead role among his colleagues in the G-8, particularly in the area of African development. Just this week CIDA announced it will contribute $34.2 million for humanitarian aid to southern Africa.

Canada will not only host this important meeting but will also be a key player in helping to set the international agenda. The discussions that will take place at this year's summit will impact ordinary people all around the world and will provide Canadians with an opportunity to share our values with the world.

I ask the House to join me in welcoming the world leaders to Canada.