For heaven's sakes, John, there is no war.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 41% of the vote.
Committees of the House December 13th, 2001
For heaven's sakes, John, there is no war.
The Budget December 11th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, unless I am completely wrong, I always understood housing and social services to be constitutionally entirely a provincial responsibility. In fact, the provinces have retreated on funding in these areas.
In this budget, at a time of recession, we see $600 million committed by the federal government to low income housing. Surely the member will agree that this is something that the federal government is not obligated to do. It is something that is very fine that it is doing. Surely her anger about social housing should be directed at the provinces, not at the federal government.
The Budget December 11th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his remarks, particularly about CSIS. I am one who certainly feels that we have to get behind our national security services, although I have to note that the secret services, the security services, are very much in the business of risk management. That is what one does when in the business of counterespionage and the control of terrorists.
The member alluded several times to the fact that the provincial police, or the associations representing the provincial police, felt they were underfunded and there should be more funding. Does he not agree, given that the threat from terrorism is a national threat, that each level of government should undertake to support financially the areas under its jurisdiction? Just as there should be more spending or as much spending as possible or practical on CSIS and the RCMP, should we also expect the provinces to fund the municipal police who also have to carry the burden?
An act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act December 6th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to Motion No. 4 which would change a line in the definition of animal in the bill from an animal that is capable of feeling pain to an animal that is capable of experiencing pain.
The parliamentary secretary, with great respect to him, made a comment on Motion No. 4 and the record will show that there was a major contradiction in his statement. What he said, in effect, was that in order to be conscious of pain an animal has to have a central nervous system. I suggest that in order for an animal to be conscious of pain it has to have a brain.
The purpose of Motion No. 4 is simply to create a clarification in the bill whereby when the courts come to examine what we mean by cruelty to a creature the court will understand it to mean that the creature suffers. I suggest that in order for a creature to suffer it has to have a brain that is at least sufficiently of a high order that it is conscious of its surroundings.
In other words, the animal has to be conscious of suffering. I suggest that simply having a nervous system, such as a worm or an octopus, does not mean that an animal, while it may feel pain in the sense that it reacts to pain, is actually conscious of the pain in the sense of suffering. We have no way of knowing that.
In changing the word feel to experience I think we could all assume the courts would interpret the word experience in an appropriate sense rather than in a broad sense that is inappropriate. The sense, of course, that has been implied is that one has to have some sort of consciousness in order to experience one's own senses.
The choice of the word experience was simply to suggest to the courts that what we are talking about in the cruelty to animals bill are creatures that suffer, not creatures that are of such low order no one would assume they suffer. Even an amoeba will react to cold water or any other infliction of heat or dryness and so will a worm.
I want to make sure that when the courts look at this legislation they appreciate that the intent of parliament is to spare the suffering of creatures, not to extend the bill to every creature on earth. I am afraid that unless we limit it to the idea that an animal must be conscious of its surroundings we run the risk of the bill having too large a sweep.
This is primarily a technical change which I think would be of advantage to the bill. I hope that the justice department, which in fairness has not had time to review my motion in depth, will re-examine the whole distinction between experience and feel in the sense of being conscious of one's environment. Perhaps we can look forward to the justice minister's support for this motion when it comes time to vote.
An act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act December 6th, 2001
moved:
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-15B, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 3 with the following:
“other animal that has the capacity to experience pain.”
Supply December 4th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, why the secretary of state actually defends the point. She makes $132,000 plus, and she is entirely eligible to have her drugs free and to have whatever is available in the non-insured health benefits program. I grant she may not do it. As a matter of fact I am sure she does not do it but there are many people in urban settings who do.
The program was never ever designed for people in urban communities. It was intended for aboriginals, Indians on reserves. It was primarily a program not based on and it was never intended in my view to be simply based on race. All I am suggesting is that the program should be re-examined. It should be an object of legislation and should be focused on those in need.
Supply December 4th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca suggested in his speech that government backbenchers were afraid to utter constructive criticisms of their own government programs. Not so. Many, many backbench MPs have constructive suggestions for the government. The member from Esquimalt when I challenged him on that suggested that I, who is well known for making constructive criticisms of government programs, was relegated to this corner of the House as some sort of punishment.
Well, I wish to reassure all members of the House of Commons that I am over in this corner of the House of Commons in order to give me more speaking room, in order to speak to the government members, to speak to the opposition members and to speak to even the Conservative members in the corner here. I consider my place in the House of Commons, the location of my seat, an honour. Now I will proceed to criticize a government program.
I really actually appreciate the opportunity this opposition motion does afford those in the House who monitor various government programs and have reservations about them. The program that most disturbs me and will be the main focus of my remarks is the non-insured health benefits program run by Health Canada for Canada's aboriginals, all those covered by the Indian Act.
This is a program that now costs the government treasury $578 million a year. It is a program that is not mandated in legislation whatsoever. It comes out of the blue. It was inherited from the previous Conservative government and it was designed to provide Canada's aboriginal citizens with free drugs and free vision care equipment like sunglasses and eyeglasses. It was designed to give free transportation to aboriginals.
The program was introduced by the former Conservative government under Brian Mulroney. At about the same time, a couple of years after that same government brought in a bill called Bill C-31, which extended Indian status extensively. It extended it mainly to women who had married non-Indians and had moved off the reserve. Consequently over the last 15 years there has been a tremendous expansion of people who qualify as aboriginals for the various programs that exist for aboriginals. This applies to the non-insured health benefits program, so what we have is a program that began costing the government a couple of hundred million, has risen exponentially and now costs $578 million a year.
The difficulty is it is a program that is based exclusively on race. It is not based on the economic disadvantage of individuals. It is not based on whether they are on reserve or off reserve. It is not based on income. One of the problems is that an untold amount of money in that program is going to people who have their Indian cards who are taking advantage of the program and have no need to take advantage of the program.
I know of at least one instance where the individual is earning about $300,000 a year and yet he qualifies for the program. That is a very extreme example, but in Canada's urban centres there are literally tens of thousands of individuals who qualify for the free drugs which run into seven million prescriptions a year. There are stories where they go out and their kids can get free sunglasses and so on and so forth.
This is a classic case where parliament needs to intervene and draw parameters around this program focusing on people who are in need rather than simply on race. I would suggest that the savings could be a couple of hundred million dollars.
We have heard a lot from the other side on how in this time of recession we should be doing everything we can to cut spending and lower taxes, but I submit that we have not had a lot of constructive suggestions. I would suggest that if the government were to come into the non-insured health benefits program, put it under legislation finally and make it income relevant as it should be directed to those in need, there would be a tremendous saving and I think there would be a tremendous benefit to the people involved as well.
The other program that I am very critical of that I wish the finance minister would pay attention to is in the context of Canada's national debt. The member for Elk Island spoke considerably on this. My disappointment is that it is certainly true we have reduced the debt by $36 billion, but looking at the public accounts and looking at the report of the auditor general we could have reduced that debt by another $7 billion. We can still reduce it by $3 billion or $4 billion just like that. The way is to take the money back from the foundations, the nine foundations that were set up with government funds to undertake various programs.
For instance, there is about $3 billion locked up in the Canada foundation for innovation. I have no problem with the idea behind this foundation, which is to try to improve Canada's technological competitiveness, but it is an evasion of public responsibility when taxpayer dollars are given to an arm's length organization that then invests it. Rather than having a foundation invest taxpayer dollars, it should have been reduced from the debt because what you have, Mr. Speaker, is $7 billion in various investments in these arm's length foundations that would actually, if the money had been held back until needed, have reduced the debt by some $7 billion.
I think the finance department and the finance minister should examine the whole philosophy about setting up things like the millennium scholarship fund which is another one of these foundations that accounts for $2.4 billion. The millennium scholarship fund is an excellent program. I think it is excellent but it should be a charge as you go, not as a charge to the future. The final difficulty, Mr. Speaker, is of course if you put the money out to foundations and they invest it of course they become susceptible to what happens in the markets.
I have the annual report before me of the Canada foundation for innovation, but I regret I cannot get enough information from it to determine whether the billion or so dollars that it invested in various market instruments had gained or lost money. That is precisely the point: if it had been a debt reduction it would have meant that the Government of Canada would not be borrowing.
You see what happens, Mr. Speaker. By giving it to an arm's length foundation, $7 billion to a foundation, it means the government has to continue to borrow. I do not think this is acceptable, but I think $7 billion is a worthy saving.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank members of the opposition for giving me the opportunity to suggest to the government these two areas that I think it could address. I know it is too late for the budget remarks that are coming up very shortly, but to me it is parliament that is responsible for spending taxpayer money. It is parliament that should be accountable. I deplore situations where there is a $578 million program that is not legislated by parliament that is dispensing that amount of money. I deplore also where we offload our responsibilities to arm's length organizations when we should keep the money for our own purposes to keep the debt down and pay for these programs as we go.
Supply December 4th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca is talking nonsense. I have been a member of the government backbenches for the last eight years and I have never received a call from the PMO except to ask for my advice. I have never been told not to say anything.
I hope the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca stays for my speech which will immediately follow his questions and comments because he will see an example of a government backbencher attacking government programs in order to effect change, so there is no question on this side. We are not muzzled by the Prime Minister's Office or anyone else.
Let me ask the member a question. One of the themes that has been coming through the Canadian Alliance speeches is this idea that in order to address the problem of the economic recession and to address the problem of a high government debt the only solution they seem to have is to cut taxes, but surely cutting taxes is cutting revenues which is a contradiction if we want to reduce the debt when we need revenues.
Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act November 29th, 2001
Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act November 29th, 2001
Madam Speaker, I regret actually that the member opposite did wander off the topic of Bill C-35. I would like to bring him back to Bill C-35 with a question.
The member for Palliser would have had us believe earlier in the debate that security perimeters should be as close as possible to the international meetings, that the RCMP should have limited powers because peaceful protesters are the only thing to be worried about; but is it not true that we have a problem now where there are violent protesters infiltrated within peaceful protesters and that there is the possibility that there are terrorists inside those masked violent protesters?
Is this not an imperative that we must address in Bill C-35 by giving or defining additional powers to the RCMP? Can we allow a situation to continue to occur where international protests occurring in Canada are dangerous and there is a chance that somebody could be killed and somebody from a foreign land could be killed?