Wendy Lill

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

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to have the opportunity today to address the House with some comments about the Speech from the Throne that opened Parliament on September 30.

Throughout the summer months I have talked to hundreds of people in my riding about issues that concern them. I talked to them at barbecues, on the ferry, on fundraising walks and in my office. Over and over again I heard about the critical state of our health care system. I heard about the dismay and fear caused by waiting lists in emergency rooms, for MRIs, for mammograms, for appointments with specialists and for necessary operations. I heard from people who have lost loved ones and are left to ponder the terrible question, what if they had received the help they needed when they needed it? That is a terrible question to be left with.

In my riding almost daily I also hear about education issues, about the lack of speech therapists and teachers' assistants and social workers. Although I know that these issues are considered provincial issues, I always do whatever I can to move them ahead because investing in young people is of course a national issue. Providing a level playing field for young persons with disabilities is absolutely a federal responsibility and a charter of rights responsibility.

This summer I also heard a great deal about the high cost of post-secondary education from young people, and from their parents who have invested years in their children's schooling. I heard from young people who have dared to dream about future professions and who now are facing incredible costs for post-secondary education. With the federal government's abandonment of its support for post-secondary education, tuition fees have gone up by 135%. Nova Scotia is leading this shameful example.

This summer, with the extreme weather events across the country and across the globe, I also heard concerns about our environment: water quality, air quality and of course our sewage treatment problems.

I have heard from people in North Preston who said they can wait no longer for the three levels of government to come together and help them build their much needed recreation centre.

I have heard much about poverty and substandard housing as well.

At the Battle of Britain ceremonies and at the jetties to meet returning ships, I heard concerns from veterans and many people in the armed forces about the fact that the government continues not to put in the necessary money for the equipment they need to do their job.

So it was with great interest that I listened to the throne speech in hopes that there would be some long awaited good news for the people of Canada.

To begin with, as I just asked the minister a question about this today, I would have to say that unfortunately and outrageously nothing was said in the throne speech about a significant federal commitment to the Halifax harbour cleanup. What is needed and what the NDP has been pressing for since the beginning is for the federal government to commit one-third of the money for such a large environmental infrastructure project, which is what it used to do in the past. That would be about $110 million. Instead, the government followed the lead of the provincial government, the ham-fisted provincial government, with only a token $30 million investment, leaving our city scrambling and our citizens wondering what it is they can expect from the federal government other than lofty words.

Unfortunately, the throne speech was full of lofty words and promises but alarmingly short on how-tos and whens. The unfulfilled promises from the Liberal red book of 1993 and 1996 have reappeared on everything from child poverty to urban renewal.

The throne speech indicated that the Liberals will finally ask Parliament to ratify the Kyoto accord. It was in one slim paragraph, very short on details, with no plan as to how they are going to do this. That is a crime. Because of Liberal stalling, greenhouse gas emissions today are 14% above 1990 levels, about 20% above our Kyoto target. By Health Canada's own admission, 16,000 people die prematurely every year due to environmental pollution.

New Democrats are fighting for action now on Kyoto, not vague promises. We need a solid implementation plan now to reflect the environmental impact on and the technological capability of our economy in terms of the environmental problems we are facing. We need to fight for a ratification plan that is fair to affected regions and to the workers in those regions. To make Kyoto work we need good ideas and legislation and federal commitments now.

The NDP is calling for the legislated creation of a market for ethanol and biomass fuels and for the mandatory conversion of coal-fired energy plants through the enforcement of clean air standards. As well, we are calling for the creation of a national alternative energy strategy, based upon proven capability in wind, solar and tidal production, and, in partnership with the provinces and municipalities, for the federal government to support transportation waste diversion and municipal infrastructure programs that promote energy efficiency and the use of non-fossil fuels. Of course this includes the Halifax harbour cleanup.

Not surprisingly, the throne speech called for much needed work in the health care system. New Democrats welcome a strong and renewed commitment by the federal government to our beleaguered public health care system. We will be watching carefully to make sure that this promise is not broken again. Privatization, long waiting lists for surgery, and woefully inadequate home and long term care: this is the Prime Minister's legacy so far.

The Romanow report due in November is expected to provide a blueprint for a renewed federal role in health care. We believe that this renewed role must include a significant increase in federal funding to the provinces and enforcement of the Canada Health Act to stop the growth of private clinics and hospitals. We also believe that we have to see an introduction of the long promised national pharmacare and home care programs. We will be fighting for those measures and will oppose any “rob Peter to pay Paul” proposals for funding the federal increase to health care transfers.

So far we have seen trial balloons about increasing the GST or further cutting employment insurance to pay for increases in health care funding. Such moves would be unfair and unacceptable. If the Liberals need more revenue for health care and social programs, they should look first at the ill-advised tax cuts contained in the former finance minister's 2000 budget, tax cuts that benefit mainly the banks, the big corporations and the wealthy.

Canadian content was sorely missing in the throne speech and in the Prime Minister's legacy. There was no mention of increased investment in the Canada Council or the CBC. Deep cuts to the CBC have destroyed the public broadcaster's ability to fulfill its mandate for Canadians. For all intents and purposes, CBC regional television news programming has ceased to exist under the Prime Minister's government. Despite all of the recent Liberal rhetoric about redressing the democratic deficit, the throne speech is silent about the critical need for media concentration legislation.

Nor does the throne speech give any comfort to military families that our Sea Kings will be replaced, or to the homeless that there will be affordable housing started before the snow flies.

There are many more people who will be sorely disappointed with the government's direction, but perhaps none more than persons with disabilities. Even as the throne speech puts forward a couple of measures to address disability issues, the finance department is ripping away other much needed income supports. It is instituting unfair and punitive measures to cut people off from the disability tax credit. Canadians with disabilities deserve respect and equal citizenship from their government, not harassing bureaucracies and punitive legislation.

In closing, I would urge the government to follow the calls from the courts, advocacy groups, the medical profession and the disabilities subcommittee and provide humane and compassionate tax relief to our most vulnerable citizens. That would be the most significant and genuine legacy of all.

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

Madam Speaker, the issue the member for Palliser has raised is a very disturbing one because it goes right to the heart of public confidence in the democratic system.

In my riding, the proposed boundary will be changed in a very significant part of my community called North Dartmouth. It is a community of interest and has historical voting patterns that date back to Confederation, yet the proposal is to change the boundary right down the middle. I have had meetings with people and during the summer we talked about this issue and actually made presentations to the boundary commission. One of the comments made by somebody in those early days struck my heart. It was “What does it matter, because this is just the way it is and this is going to happen anyway”. I was struck by the fact that these people in my community had no confidence that this was an unbiased and fair process.

I want to ask the member for Palliser how he feels. How much damage is done when certain boundary commissions that have been struck seem to have quite a strong connection to the government? How do we redress this damage?

[Harbours, October 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

This week he finally committed the government to one-third of the costs for the cleanup of St. John's harbour but for some reason his government has announced that it will only contribute 10% of the cost to clean up Halifax harbour. The Halifax project has been planned for decades but needs one-third federal support to be a success.

When will he start paying the same percentage of the cost for Halifax as St. John's? When will the government deliver the rest of the money for the Halifax Harbour cleanup?

[Privilege, October 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise with you a question of privilege coming out of today's question period in follow-up from yesterday's question period.

The Minister of Finance in response to the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan said that with respect to the disability tax credit we should not try to personalize these issues.

Mr. Speaker, the personal is political. Many Canadians are affected by the decisions of the government to put persons with disabilities through the trauma of reapplying for benefits.

Many other members of the House, as in this population, have members of their own families with disabilities, including myself and the member for Winnipeg North Centre. We take great offence with the comments of the minister. It is personal and it is an offensive public policy measure.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has worked hard in supporting aboriginal land claims and in supporting the vision of self-government for native people in this country. I refer to Chief Joe Gosnell's comment that it took nearly three decades and $50 million to reach the historic treaty that gave the Nisga'a people self-governing status in northern British Columbia.

Today, native people, Chief Gosnell included, are very worried that in fact the minister is warning them, threatening to walk away from as many as 30 negotiating tables. My question for the minister is this: Does the government intend to undertake full negotiations with first nations and all interested parties before reintroducing a revised Indian Act?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member about his thoughts on the issue of persons with disabilities.

I have read the throne speech and I see two references to persons with disabilities. There are two promises which I hope happen: support for families with severely disabled children and possible moneys for training Canadians with disabilities in the workforce. However how is it that the same government which seems to see these as goals, on which it may or may not come through, can at the same time be cutting back on the number of people who are able to gain the disability tax credit?

We have heard within the last week or so that the regulations around the disability tax credit are tightening up even more stringently. People's feeding and clothing habits are being looked at through a microscope to see whether they would be eligible for this tiny tax credit.

We have on one hand a government that is scapegoating and almost going to war against people with disabilities, and then we have all the lofty goals the member just talked about. Would the member help me square this incredible dichotomy?

[National Revenue, October 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, even as yesterday's throne speech tried to paint a progressive face on the government, the finance department is further tightening the screws on Canadians with disabilities.

The Federal Court called for a more humane and compassionate interpretation of disabilities, yet the government is bringing in new regulations to cut even more people off the disability tax credit.

Why is the government defying the advice of the courts, advocacy groups, the medical profession and the disability subcommittee to provide humane and compassionate tax relief to our most vulnerable citizens?

[The Media, June 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we know CanWest Global has done at least two big favours for the government. It has donated more $250,000 to the Liberal Party and this week it fired the publisher of the Ottawa Citizen for being openly critical of the Prime Minister.

We also know that CanWest is lobbying for changes to the broadcast regulations in the form of cuts to Canadian content and increased advertising to improve its corporate bottom line.

Will the minister assure Canadians that the government will not further commercialize and Americanize our airwaves as a way of paying back CanWest for services rendered?

[Vimy Ridge Day Act, June 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to speak to and endorse Bill C-409 put forward by the hon. member for Algoma--Manitoulin. The bill would institute a Vimy Ridge day to commemorate the important contributions made by the Canadian armed forces in the Battle of Vimy Ridge.

I agree with the distinguished member who spoke before me. Whenever we have a debate about recognizing the military and the people who have fought for the country we realize the importance of financially assisting the legions. I too hear constantly about the need of legions to fix leaky roofs, put in elevators, build ramps for veterans with disabilities and deal with continuous problems of infrastructure. I am sure all members in the House deal with the issue on a regular basis. Having days of commemoration and celebration is important, but it is also important to put money into the legions. They are the heartbeat of the memory of our armed forces and their contributions to world peace.

I stand here today on behalf of my hon. colleague from Sackville--Musquodoboit Valley--Eastern Shore who was not able to participate in the debate today. He had to return home to be with his daughter. She broke her hand and needs to have her dad by her side. I will be a weak replacement for the hon. member but will do my best.

In preparation for the debate tonight I came upon an account by Tom Morgan who wrote a document called “Vimy Ridge--80 Years On...” which contains some eloquent words describing the battle. I do not think anyone could say it better. Morgan described what the battle really meant to Canadians and the people involved:

April 9th., 1917--Easter Monday--dawned cold, with freezing rain and sleet. The ground conditions were very bad, with slippery mud waiting to hamper the Canadians as they began their assault. Heavily laden, the men began to cross the shattered No-Man's Land, skirting as best they could the shell-holes and craters, until they came to the muddy, slippery slopes of the Ridge itself. They advanced behind a creeping barrage--a curtain of falling shells which crept forward just ahead of them. At key places in the advance, fresh troops took over the lead, until by the middle of the afternoon, three of the Canadian divisions had captured most of Vimy Ridge. By the next day, Hill 145 was also in Canadian hands, leaving just a few isolated outposts. By April 12th these, too had been taken and the Canadians' victory was complete.

After three years, the Germans were now driven from Vimy Ridge. There was to be no breakthrough, however, as the Canadians were unable to get their artillery out of their positions and across the muddy, shell-torn ground of the battlefield. However, they had captured more ground, more prisoners and more guns than any previous “British” offensive in the war thus far. It was the greatest Allied Victory yet.

Although the victory at Vimy came quickly, it did not come without cost. Of the 10,602 Canadian casualties, there were 3,598 dead. This is a high and tragic number, but it must be compared with the 200,000 Canadian, British, French and German dead who lie buried on the ridge from earlier, unsuccessful attacks. And the Canadians alone lost 24,000 killed or wounded on the Somme the previous year.

For Canada, the attack on Vimy Ridge marked a turning-point in the country's march towards distinct nationhood. In the words of Brigadier-General Alexander Ross, DSO, who commanded the 28th (North West) Canadian Battalion at Vimy, “It was Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific on parade. I thought then that in those few minutes I witnessed the birth of a nation.”

The hon. member for Algoma--Manitoulin says we need a day of remembrance and heritage to mark the importance of the battle in Canadian and world history. I agree wholeheartedly. I also agree with Motion No. 409. I am honoured to be part of any measure that would recognize the great contributions of the Canadian forces at home and abroad, past and present, in maintaining peace and providing humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.

Over the years in my riding of Dartmouth I have been honoured to be part of special days with veterans and peacekeepers, people who carry the scars of their struggle for democracy in their bodies and minds. I have been with families on the Halifax jetty as they said hello or goodbye to loved ones leaving for tours of duty in a violent world. I was honoured to be present at the funeral of Nathan Smith, one of our Princess Pats killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan. He was a young man who loved soldiering, his life, his country, and the values of freedom and justice which he held deep in his soul.

Vimy Ridge day would join with Remembrance Day, D-Day and the many other days of the year on which we remember to thank these brave and selfless men and women for their love of and loyalty to this great country.

[Copyright Act, June 18th, 2002]

Or no hair at all. However the process is essential if we are to protect creators' rights.

In the legislation which continues to be changed and amended we must respect some of the central principles on which our broadcasting policy, our heritage policy and the pillars of the country are based. As we move along we must make sure the legislation would continue to respect Canadian content as new technologies came onstream and became new platforms for broadcasting. We must make sure there would be no loopholes and that the playing field would be level for all broadcasters in Canada. This must be done to ensure all creators in the country would continue to be covered by our copyright legislation and enjoy the same rights. We must make sure their work would be valued and compensated whether it appeared on the Internet, on the radio, in the print media or wherever.

With respect to the issue of putting money into Canadian content and such things as the Canadian broadcast fund, we must make sure environments such as the Internet or whatever follows the Internet would not somehow be exempt from the licensing fees used to nurture Canadian content.

These are important principles we in the New Democratic Party will be paying attention to as we continue to work through the copyright legislation. We will give our endorsement to Bill C-48 as a tiny step along the route of copyright protection. We will see where it goes from here.