Mac Harb

[Canada Post, March 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, postal services are very important for Canadians. I would ask the Minister of Public Works and Government Services if he could tell the House when we can expect Canada Post to sign a collective agreement with its employees.

[Blood Donor Month, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want to call attention to the problem of recurring blood shortages in communities across Canada. The challenge is for Canadians to get involved by rolling up their sleeves.

March is Blood Donor Month, and I rise to ask my fellow Canadians and my colleagues in the House of Commons to give blood with generosity.

To meet the demand, Blood Services Canada needs more donors. By becoming a regular blood donor, communities would no longer be faced with critical shortfalls in blood levels and lives would be saved.

Together we can make a difference. I call on all Canadians to accept the challenge and this March become a regular blood donor and give someone else the gift of life.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, first, we must pay careful attention to the fact that there are two issues involved here. One is the fact that the hon. member wants greater transparency.

As regards that aspect, the auditor general has already said that he was taking a close look at these files. He will submit his report by the end of the year.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, I can assure you that, here in Canada, we manage our affairs much more effectively than anywhere else in the world. The Canadian government is very transparent, much more so than any other in the world. I am convinced that nowhere in the world, including among the provinces, territories, North American countries, African states, European nations or Asian countries, is there a more transparent government than this one.

The other issue raised in the House is that the other opposition party wants the government to do its share once and for all in terms of assistance to the Canadian regions and ridings that need such help.

I am asking the hon. member if he believes that this government should stop helping Canadians, which would deprive them of opportunities, of a bridge, of better options generally.

I can assure him that, in my riding of Ottawa Centre, people want the government to continue to take care of public money as it has been doing for the past six years. My constituents are very pleased by the way this government has been managing public finances. They also want to tell the hon. member that they would rather wait until the end of the year and read the auditor general's report.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to speak to the budget items before the House today. I remember when we were on the opposition side and the government of the day was running huge deficit after huge deficit, day after day. The economy was at an all time low. We had a high inflation rate, a high unemployment rate and high interest rates.

When we came to power back in 1993 we were faced with a situation where we had in excess of a $42 billion deficit, a huge debt, very high unemployment and high interest rates. Less than five years in office we were able, with the leadership of the Prime Minister, his cabinet and his caucus, to bring things under control, turn things around and not only control the deficit but generate a surplus, not only beat down inflation but bring it to a very low level and keep it under control. For the first time in more than 30 years we were able to bring unemployment to an all time low.

We would not have been able to do that on our side alone and by ourselves. We needed the co-operation of the Canadian public. We needed the co-operation of those in the private sector, the public sector and all levels of government.

As the Prime Minister has always indicated, Canadians collectively, along with the government, managed to get us out of the slump and to meet the economic challenge. To do that we had to make a lot of sacrifices. We had to cut spending and get rid of many things we used to do in the past that because of the financial situation we were unable to do any more. In some cases we had to pass on responsibilities of the Government of Canada to others who may be able to do it as well as the government was doing before, and even in some cases better.

I want to talk about the areas of health care and education. Now that we have our house in order and the government has been able to get the financial situation under control, it is time for us to start investing. I want to be frank. I am not interested in seeing the government throw a load of money at the problem to satisfy a particular premier or province. My constituents are not interested in that. They are demanding a level of accountability and a level of responsibility. The two go hand in hand every time the Government of Canada hands down transfer payments to a provincial government or other levels of government. My constituents want accountability.

When we talk about transfer payments for health care and education, my constituents do not want the federal government to pass on money to provinces that will not effectively and efficiently use the money for those purposes. They want them to use it efficiently and effectively. They want the provinces to respect the five principles of health care. They want the provincial governments to move forward, to get out of the past and into the future, to stop talking about issues such as primary care and to start talking about issues such as the way we improve and deliver services, access, and accountability to Canadians.

The way we used to deliver services is not applicable any more. In the past our population was not aging at the speed that it is aging now. By the year 2010 or 2015 we will have double the number of senior citizens as we had in the past or have in the present. We have an aging population and as such we need to move the health care system from an institutional type of setting into the community where we will have more home care support and services, more services through community centres and through frontline agencies and organizations. Then we could provide more and better services than we had in the past or what we are doing now.

If it means we have to bring the provinces, the territories and other levels of government kicking and screaming into the this century, my constituents would support the government and continue to support it 100%. The status quo is simply and purely not working any more. We have to introduce new ways to provide services to Canadians across the country in the areas of health care and education.

That is why the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health have called on the provincial ministers of health and the premiers of the provinces to come together to talk about ways to deliver the health care system in a more efficient, effective and responsive way. Then Canadians would receive a return on their investment and the appropriate service they so much deserve and need.

It is not a question of simply increasing the transfer payments to the provinces and that is the end of it, the problem is solved. Far from it. I bet we could fill this House and five houses on top of it with hundreds of millions of dollars, even billions, but unless the structure is changed and the way we deliver those services is changed we will have the same problem 15 or 20 years from now. We could have a band-aid solution and we could buy our way out of the problem in the short term, but in the long term we have to look at the structure of the problem.

The same thing applies in the area of education. When we talk about education we talk about young children who have not yet reached the educational system, or those who were born three, four, five or ten years ago who are entering the system. If we want to reform the educational system, that is the area which must be our priority. That is the area into which we have to put our investment.

After the election of 1993 this government made an unequivocal commitment that, should the provincial governments agree, we would have a national child care program whereby all of the different partners would come together. Guess what? One province after the other stood to denounce the federal government for intruding into provincial jurisdiction, yet they turned around and said “But give us the money”.

Canadians do not want it to be handed down from the federal government to the provincial governments without any accountability, without a tangible partnership that we can measure and see. To that extent, here again the Prime Minister has called on the provincial premiers to come together to develop a national strategy to deal with our children and youth, and to have a system which responds to the needs of Canadians.

Those are the two challenges facing us in the days, months and years to come. My colleagues on both sides of the House of Commons have a responsibility and a mandate to go to their provincial colleagues and stress to them the importance of working collectively as partners to respond to the needs of Canadians, not to stand in the House and say that if we spray more money on the problems the problems might go away.

[Petitions, March 24th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have a group of petitioners who want the House to enact legislation to establish an independent governing body to develop, implement and enforce uniform and mandatory mammography quality assurance and quality control standards in Canada.

[Canada Shipping Act, March 24th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have introduced a number of private members' bills that are intended to bring various Canadian acts in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I am pleased to announce in the House today that the Minister of Transport has advised me that the amendment outlined in Bill C-374, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, definition of child and infant, were introduced in the other place as part of Bill S-17.

While I thank the minister for his effort and look forward to the quick passage of Bill S-17, I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House that the order for second reading of Bill C-374 be discharged and the bill be withdrawn.

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, March 23rd, 2000]

He used the word dishonest.

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, March 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague from New Brunswick did not mean to say what he said in the House earlier. He used unparliamentary language, which he knows as an experienced member of the House he should not have used. He used the word—

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, March 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great concern that I heard my colleague talk about the distribution of funds in Canada. I would like to remind him of two things: equality and fairness.

It is very important to look at the way the government spends Canadian tax dollars in our society. Those two elements both have to be taken into account as a priority every time.

The issue of equality suggests that the Canadian government must treat all Canadians in the same way. In the case of the research institutes in the bill before the House, when the government starts hiring people to work in these institutes, it should try to find those people who have the most talent and who are best able to serve these organizations and Canadian interests, no matter where they live in the country.

It should not even be mentioned that one candidate is from Nova Scotia, another from the Lac Saint-Jean area, another from the Ottawa area or another from British Columbia. Each application should be judged on its own merit, and the person who is best qualified should be hired to do the job. All Canadians are equal before the law and they must be treated equally.

Earlier, my colleague touched on the subject of fairness. Of course, we have look at the regions of Canada where people need help from the government. For example, in the case of HRDC programs, people in certain ridings, such as mine, do not benefit from these programs. We did not ask the government for the riding of Ottawa Centre to get more money from DHRC because assistance was provided to some other riding in Quebec or British Columbia. I have no right to ask for that as a member of parliament, because I have to take into account the issue of equity.

In our region, the unemployment rate is under 10%. Therefore, we do not qualify. However, if some of my colleagues' ridings need these programs, it is the federal government's responsibility to help these ridings and regions.

My colleague knows very well that most of the ridings in the province of Quebec, for example, received much more money from Human Resources Development Canada than others in Ontario, because this government wants to ensure that every region that needs help and qualifies for it receives it.

We must always look at things objectively, not only in a subjective way. That is why I say that my colleague was wrong to say that this is how things should always be done, with a province that gives 25% of the taxes it collected to the federal government getting 25% of benefits. Unfortunately, it does not always work like that.

We would like it to work. We hope that, someday, in our society, every Canadian will have equal opportunities and equal responsibilities, which would mean having the same tax rates and the same level of service.

The way our Confederation works, the government takes from those who have and gives to those who have not. The federal government has a responsibility to act like a reasonable mother or father. When a region of Canada is in need, it is our responsibility to provide assistance.

I was a bit annoyed when my colleague said that here, in the capital region, there will be a research institute on the Ontario side and not on the Quebec side. I want to point out to my colleague that there is no discrimination in this region. There are often agencies located on either side of the river where people go to work, and these people are Canadians from Quebec or from Ontario.

It does not make any difference here, in this region. This region is a model for the rest of the country. This is the national capital region, where all people are equal before the law, where all people know full well that we have a model capital and a model centre, and that we are proud to be citizens of this capital.

Regardless of where the research institute will be located, whether on the other side or this side of the river—I would be delighted if it were located in Aylmer or Gatineau—but wherever it is located, what matters the most to us is to have such an institute and that it does the work we hope and trust it will do.

The other issue my colleague raised earlier is the jurisdiction issue. I am proud to say that this government is meeting these demands and needs to clarify the jurisdiction issue. I am told that one of my colleagues will meet this need to really clarify the jurisdiction issue. Later, we will dot the i s and cross the t s, confirming that the provinces will continue to assume their jurisdictional responsibilities and the government should continue to do what it has been doing.

I say that this government listens and responds. I look forward to my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, to meet these needs.

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, March 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will not be taking my full 10 minutes but I will make a few comments about the importance of this act.

I have been approached by many people in the medical community in the Ottawa area who, before the government decided to proceed with this initiative, have lobbied and written letters to the Minister of Health, as well as to government officials and their members of parliament, demanding that the government initiate and introduce such an initiative.

I am delighted to see the government responding to the needs of the community and establishing this particular institute. This will set an example for other fields where we could bring together institutions, people who are on the front lines, different levels of government, agencies and the private sector so they can collectively work in the best interests of the public.

I was quite surprised that we did not have such an institute a long time ago. Given the kind of confederation and the kind of arrangement we have in Canada, one would think that this would have been the most obvious thing that we would have done 15 or 20 years ago, where would would have an agency that would look at best practices, that would exchange information and that would disseminate information across the country, and an agency where we would look at what others are doing in different fields around North America and, for that matter, all around the world.

I would say that it is high time. Finally we have something being put in place that will achieve what should have been done many years ago. To that extent I think the Minister of Health, as well as the government, is to be commended for taking this bold initiative and finally introducing what will be a step in the right direction.

I would say it is one of the finest initiatives in the area of research and development at the national level, particularly in the medical community. All we have to do is look at some of the institutes and some of the organizations in our own backyard here in the national capital region where we have some of the best pioneers in the whole world.

The World Heart Corporation is a perfect example of co-operation between the public and the private sector. We have the Heart Institute. We have leading professionals working with the Heart Institute in conjunction with the University of Ottawa and the private sector. They put their brain power and their resources together collectively and are now in the process of moving ahead with some of the finest devices anywhere in the world that will change the way we conduct ourselves and will save thousands of lives all across the world.

Initiatives like these would not happen if we did not have the kind of co-operation and the kind of cohesive exchanges of information and partnership between the public and private sectors.

The institute that the government is about to introduce and enact will facilitate more things like that, will bring together more people who have similar aspirations, similar views, similar talent, similar hopes and similar objectives. It will put them together so we can move forward and we can keep Canada on the leading edge in those areas.

I would say that despite all of the deficiencies that we have in our health care system, despite all of the problems that we encounter, we still have one of the finest systems anywhere in the world. I want to commend all those who are involved in trying to revitalize the health care system by trying to inject more blood into it, one might say. It is my hope that we do not lose sight of the fact that we have something that is good. But in thinking it out, what we need to do is bring our resources together so we can keep it healthy, so we can move forward with a system that continues to be the envy of the world.

It does not matter where we go, whether we go to Asia-Pacific, whether we go to Europe, whether we go to Africa or whether we go to the south side of the border, people always use the health care system here in Canada as an example of a system that is good and as an example of a system that responds to the needs of the people.

Now that we are faced with a challenge, which is to keep the health care system for the next 50, 100 and perhaps thousands of years, if we want to keep the system responding to the needs of Canadians we have to work collectively, but we have to work objectively. We have to work in a positive way, not a negative way. We have to find solutions that will respond to the needs of the people, rather than moving away and creating a two-tier system and start shooting at each other and undermining the system.

To the extent that this debate is taking place, it is my hope that it will be a positive one, that it will be a constructive one and that it will be an objective one.

I commend my colleagues on the opposition side for standing to support the government initiative on the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Act. It is my hope that we will push it through quite fast so it will become a reality as quickly as possible.