Wendy Lill

[Health Care System, October 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be part of this take note debate on the future of the health care system. I know we are here tonight--

[Health Care System, October 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his comments on health care and his constant references to consultation, the summits on healthy living and so on.

I would like him to comment on what I think are some of the fundamentals for healthy living and for an injection of real health back into our health care system.

In order to give health back to our health care system and restore federal support for health care back to the 25% of the public health care spending in the short term, we need to move it back to the original fifty-fifty federal-provincial split at its inception. Does the member agree?

I am also interested in knowing whether the member is considering the issue of extending universal health coverage to Canadians in need of home care and in need of extended pharmacare. So many people in our ridings are talking about the fact that home care, pharmacare and care for seniors in their declining years is woefully underfunded.

Perhaps the member could talk about the need for more money and the need to actually add into the Canada Health Act some new pillars, which would be such areas as home care and pharmacare, and how that fits into the member's healthy living assumptions.

[Persons with Disabilities, October 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

In 1975 Canada signed the UN declaration on the rights of disabled persons pledging to assist disabled persons to develop their abilities and to promote their integration as far as possible in normal life. Yet, in Ontario special education funding has been slashed and almost 40,000 students remain on waiting lists.

Why sign international agreements if the government will not back them up with action? Will the minister honour this declaration by taking steps to guarantee children with special needs equal access to our public education system?

[Halifax Harbour, October 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who makes the Halifax harbour clean-up announcements.

The government is currently committed to paying one-third of the cost of the clean up of St. John's harbour, but only 10% of the cost of the Halifax clean-up. Without the same funding as St. John's, Halifax-Dartmouth residents will have to pay a significant increase in their water bills over the next five years.

Will the minister put the same one-third commitment into the Halifax project as into the St. John's project and stop the unfair tax hikes in the HRM water bills?

[Persons with Disabilities, October 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak on behalf of Canadians with disabilities.

Last year the CCRA demanded that over 100,000 Canadians reapply for the disability tax credit even though for most, nothing about their disability had changed. Limbs had not suddenly grown back and genetic disorders had not suddenly disappeared. Tens of thousands of Canadians have lost this valuable tax credit simply because they were unable to fill out the complex forms properly.

On top of that, the finance minister has proposed changes to make it even more difficult to get this already small tax credit. Considering that many people with disabilities already live in poverty, this is truly astounding.

Because of this, the NDP has launched a nationwide letter writing campaign to the Prime Minister, asking him to withdraw the proposed amendments and to have effective consultation before making any further changes.

I call on the government to show compassion to the vulnerable people in our society, instead of taking away what very little they have.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, October 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to Bill C-15, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act which is part of the long overdue ethics package.

On the one hand I welcome the first steps of these amendments. This city has a serious case of lobbying abuse. It is clear in so many ways that lobbyists and bureaucrats have more influence on the policies of the government than do parliamentarians or the public.

I welcome the following steps: First, the removal of the expression “attempt to influence” from the definition of lobbying. This removes an ambiguity in the legislation and makes it clear that any communication covered under the act constitutes lobbying and requires legislation.

Second, the clarification that lobbying can occur when the communication is initiated by a public officeholder. This is in response to a specific recommendation of the committee. As well, adding a requirement for the ethics counsellor to notify the appropriate police authorities if he or she has reasonable grounds to believe a criminal offence has been committed.

The NDP supports changing the registration process to require corporations and their employees to meet the same requirements as non-profit organizations and the requirement that corporate officers whose employees are engaged in lobbying activities register formally.

Those are small steps in the right direction but they are also inadequate considering the way power works in Ottawa. If the government were serious about bringing in legislation that would restore Canadians' faith in the process of governance it could, at a minimum, include in Bill C-15 the following recommendations from the standing committee.

The committee recommended that a new office be created with the exclusive responsibility to investigate and report directly to Parliament on alleged violations of the lobbyists code of conduct.

The committee also recommended that further study be given to the proposal that lobbyists be required to disclose the amount of moneys spent on lobbying campaigns. Such a requirement would go a long way toward providing the kind of transparency Canadians ought to expect.

I had the pleasure of being on the heritage committee as it studied Bill S-7, a bill that would give support to non-profit and community groups allowing them to be part of the policy making that occurs in the CRTC and to have a real impact on changes and to make their concerns known about broadcasting decisions being made. It is clear at this point that there is an uneven playing field for large media corporations versus small community groups that want to have a say in the kind of media they are experiencing in their communities.

I also had a meeting the other day with many of the civil society groups who went to Johannesburg for the world climate change conference. I heard over and over again that there was no level playing field for environmental groups or advocacy groups. They are unable to act in an advocacy role in Ottawa with parliamentarians. They are being silenced. By the kind of funding they are getting they are not able to come here and make the same kind of representations as are big corporations. There are major problems in that area that have to be addressed if Canadians are going to have confidence that all voices are being heard here on the Hill.

The committee also recommended that the role of private sector consultants in developing government policy be examined by Parliament with a view to promoting transparency and eliminating conflict of interest. At this point in time a private company, which today is employed to lobby government for certain legislative changes, could tomorrow be hired by the government to consult on the advisability of such changes. The potential for conflict of interest is obvious and yet it is not addressed in the legislation. It is quite incredible that we see that lapse not being addressed.

The NDP would view the bill in the overall context of the recently announced ethics packages from the Liberals. The Prime Minister announced a few small baby steps, such as amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act, to create a single ethics counsellor appointed by Parliament in the same way as the Auditor General. The post would be for a five year, non-renewable term responsible for the Prime Minister's code for cabinet ministers and parliamentarians. The commissioner would have the same power as the Auditor General.

The commissioner would be able to dismiss frivolous complaints but would be required to report them. This is a great improvement on the current long-standing ethics comedy starring Mr. Wilson. I welcome the announcement of a draft code of conduct for parliamentarians that requires disclosure of interests by MPs and senators but not spouses. The immediate family disclosure requirements for ministers and parliamentary secretaries remain.

The commissioner would be required to administer this code and to report to committees of the House and Senate. The exclusion of spouses is a serious flaw but it is not the only flaw. Let us look at the case of ministers.

The commissioner would report to the Prime Minister, the minister in question and the originator of the complaint. The commissioner would be required to report on all matters disposed to him or her annually in Parliament. In the end, the Prime Minister could overturn the findings of the commissioner. This means we would have a long, involved ethical process which would exist at the whim of a single politician. This is the situation we are trying to get rid of.

The Liberals have no credibility on the issue of ethics. Be it the Prime Minister or the former finance minister, we see constant abuses of government power in the government.

Today a Senate committee is making recommendations to increase funding to the private sector to deliver health care. The chair of this committee sits on the board of Extendicare, a private company which would greatly benefit if this recommendation is implemented. This is just one more example of the fact that the government has no moral credibility on the whole ethics file and that is the crux of the problem.

Ethics in government do not exist because we pass a law in this place. Ethics in government exist because people who are in public life strive to put the public interest ahead of their own interests and personal or political ambitions of the day. Ethics in government exist when we work to make government an instrument used to help the public, not used as part of an advantage.

Using this standard, the Liberals have failed and even when they change the Prime Minister they will continue to fail. Regardless of who is the leader, the Liberals continue to have the same crew in place and they have lost the moral authority because they continue to use their position of public trust to make their party or their faction look better.

It has been shameful to witness scandal after scandal by the government. It has been shameful to see the official opposition attempt to use these scandals as an excuse to further discredit the concept of government for the public good.

I have tried to be an advocate for the arts and for people with disabilities in this place. However, it has been painfully clear that the approach of the government to both issues has been to put its own agenda ahead of the needs of those vulnerable communities.

Artists are used by the government as a backdrop for ministers. People with disabilities are given great rhetoric but more often than not are used as a place to find savings for other government initiatives. For me, this is proof of the death of the unethical roots of the government opposite. When these cynical manipulations are done away with, the House will see me rise and give wholehearted support for an ethical package from the Prime Minister of the country, or from the member for LaSalle—Émard, or whomever is in place when that finally happens. However, I am not holding my breath at this point.

[Literacy Action Day, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today is Literacy Action Day and I would like to welcome all of the literacy delegates who are here today to give us an important message.

We all know in the House as parliamentarians the importance of solid reading, writing and comprehension skills in the full process of democratic debate and in the knowledge based economy that we are all working in now.

Canada has one of the highest literacy rates in the world and yet, ironically, in a country that has produced award winning writers, such as Yann Martel, close to half of our citizenry may not be able to even read his novel.

The development of a larger, more skilled workforce is crucial to Canada's future economic success, as well as creating a culture that values lifelong learning.

Today I join with the literacy delegates and call on the government to ensure that making advancements on literacy is a policy and a budget priority.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, October 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the bill and to follow my colleague from across the House. The debate on the bill to amend Nuclear Safety and Control Act is important. Nuclear power is an extremely important issue for Canadians, given that it is a major power source in the country, but also a power source that poses some of the greatest security risks.

The purpose of the bill is simple enough. It is to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act to clarify who is liable in case of a nuclear accident. As the Minister of Natural Resources has explained, under the current wording, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has the authority to order the owner or occupant or any other person with a right or an interest in it to take measures to reduce radioactive contamination. However, the proposed amendment replaces the words “person with a right or interest in” with the words “person who has the management and control”, which limits the scope of liability.

Further, the minister has said that the amendment serves to clarify the risk for institutions lending to companies in the nuclear industry. What this really means is that banks can freely lend money to the nuclear industry without having to worry about any kind of liability. Therefore, banks can now invest in nuclear power plants without worrying about the consequences, like contaminated air, water or land. They do not have to worry about a possible meltdown or even seepage into the land that grows our food or the water that we drink.

It would be nice to make money without having to worry about how it will affect other people but that is not the world in which we should be living.

Even without the amendment, the liability that banks and any other lending institution faces under the Nuclear Liability Act is a maximum of $75 million. Considering that nuclear accidents, such as Chernobyl, can run up costs in the billions of dollars, banks and others that could be liable are in fact already getting off very lightly. For example, in the United Kingdom the liability limit is $300 million and in other European countries the liability is as high as $600 million.

Considering the dangers and the expenses associated with nuclear power, the only amendment that should be made should be to widen the scope of liability for this industry, not narrow it as the bill would do.

The government has presented the bill as simply a housekeeping measure, but in fact there are many serious issues that arise from it. The bill makes it easier for banks to give loans to nuclear power plants because banks no longer have to worry about liability.

The Minister of Natural Resources said the bill is not and should not be misconstrued as a measure to provide favourable treatment to the nuclear industry. Yet when banks virtually finance anything else, a house, a building or a store, banks take on a measure of liability. Why are the banks being let off the hook when it comes to one of the most dangerous industries in Canada? How can this not be considered favourable treatment?

The federal government has long favoured the nuclear industry, giving it billions and billions of dollars in subsidies. Massive accidents such as the horrendous one in Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and the various smaller problems with nuclear plants in Ontario and New Brunswick have not deterred the government from supporting the nuclear industry. In fact the minister has made it clear that this amendment was designed to make it easier for the industry to gain capital and, therefore, expand.

Iraq and North Korea have been dominating the news lately. Why? Because of the fear that they may have developed nuclear weapons. What does that have to do with Canada? Canada only uses nuclear energy as a power source, as an energy source at this point. However Canada has also exported nuclear technology to countries such as India, Pakistan and South Korea, countries that have used this technology to develop and use nuclear weapons.

As well as the waste product from nuclear power plants that as my hon. colleague across the way mentioned, plutonium is one of the most dangerous products out there right now. Not only is plutonium a key ingredient to make nuclear weapons, it also is a major threat to human life itself.

Radiation release into the environment has led to the contamination of soils, air, rivers and oceans, causing cancer and other diseases in people. The generation of electricity in nuclear reactors produces substances that can be used for the fabrication of nuclear weapons. The dangers associated with the handling of weapons-usable nuclear substances requires a high level of security and secrecy even in democratic countries.

Moreover, nuclear energy has never been economical despite the massive state subsidies that it has received for decades. Even now funding still pours into the nuclear sector at the expense of renewable energy like solar or wind energy.

These are all reasons to stop the expansion of the nuclear industry and to look at alternative fuel sources, yet the government wants to continue to support the industry by making it easier to finance it. At a time when most countries are moving away from unsafe and unclean energy sources, the government seems intent on preserving them.

I and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party have put forward proposals to meet the goals set out in the Kyoto accord and they apply to this bill as well. Instead of expanding nuclear power we should look at safer, cleaner solutions. It is possible and feasible to expand the use of alternative sources such as hydro, wind and solar power. We have also called for a renewed emphasis on urban transit, a clean air fund, and a research incentive program to cut our dependency on sources of energy such as nuclear power.

The bottom line is that we need to stop the expansion of dangerous and unclean energy such as nuclear power and look at viable, clean alternatives. I urge my colleagues in the House to vote against the bill.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 11th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, the Halifax harbour cleanup project has been ongoing for 15 years, I believe. It has had different faces to it. The structure now involves four cleanup facilities around the harbour.

For as long as I have been an MP there has never been the kind of commitment at either the federal level or provincial level that was necessary. I have seen the city struggling along trying to pick up the slack from both levels of government. It is a project that is much too big for a municipality.

I have to say that both provincial and federal levels have really dropped the ball. It is a tradition with large infrastructure projects such as this, of course, that a municipal tax base cannot carry it and that those two governments pitch in half and half. They have both let us down.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 11th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has raised a very good point. For all of the time that this issue has been discussed, we are still without facts and figures and real work done on the implications that environmental work would have across the country and in different regions.

The NDP is of the belief there are hundreds of thousands of jobs available in the whole area of environmental cleanup, in diversification of our energy sources. We have to move ahead and realize that we are our own worst enemies if we are stuck in the past around the issue of what is now existing in terms of jobs. There are jobs in the future. We can see many conversion jobs in the future. We should move ahead with the rest of the globe on this issue.