Mac Harb

[Health, June 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in fairness to all of my colleagues here, there have been some discussions. If we really want consent for the bill to go to committee, procedurally this is perhaps the most effective way. I do know of at least one or two members who are going to say no. As a result, this is the best possible scenario in a situation where we can still continue to debate the issue at the committee level and have the House dispose of it.

With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I would ask if I could possibly propose a motion at this time or would you rather that I wait until later?

[Health, June 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on a motion of critical concern to all Canadians. Multiple chemical sensitivity, chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia affect between 6% to 15% of the Canadian population. Of those affected approximately 1% to 2% are so severely debilitated that they require hospitalization. This is a large number of Canadians that need our attention. I will elaborate on these illnesses and their effects on Canadians.

Multiple chemical sensitivity or environmental illness is a chronic condition where symptoms occur in response to low levels of exposure to multiple unrelated chemicals and the condition improves or resolves itself when these chemicals are removed. It is a multiple organ disorder that is closely related to chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia. Symptoms overlap in these three conditions.

In 1994 the U.S. Centre for Disease Control concluded that chronic fatigue syndrome is a clinically defined condition characterized by persistent fatigue and a variety of multisystem symptoms. The core symptoms include excessive fatigue, general muscular and joint pain, mental fogginess and often gastrointestinal problems. Other symptoms include fatigue following stressful activities, headaches, sore throat, sleep disturbance, low grade fever and depressed mood. The symptoms fluctuate in severity and persist for a prolonged period of time.

The exact cause of chronic fatigue syndrome is not yet known. Current etiological theories proposed are neuroendocrine dysfunction, viruses, environmental toxins, genetic predispositions, head injuries and stress. The disease is more prevalent in women than in men.

Fibromyalgia on the other hand is a painful muscle disorder in which the thin film or tissue, myofacsia, that holds the muscles together becomes tightened or thickened causing pain. It is also known as fibrositis. This disorder shares many of the same symptoms as chronic fatigue syndrome and is also more common in women than in men.

The sad truth about these illnesses is that they destroy not only the health of those they afflict but also affect the lives of their families. Imagine your child being rendered bedridden by allergic reactions to the new carpeting in his or her school or your spouse or companion becoming disabled after his or her office has been renovated. These are the realities of people affected with multiple chemical sensitivities.

We may or may not be aware of the struggle of these people and the fact that they are unable to look after themselves and their families once afflicted. The problem is that there is no standard when it comes to applicability when we are dealing with these diseases.

Imagine an individual who is affected by this disease and applies for assistance, say for example through the Canada pension plan disability benefit. Those benefits may or may not be given to that particular person depending on the province or territory they may be living in. The problem is that there is no standard. The result is that disabled people are treated inequitably.

These people are sick and in many cases they are being denied benefits. At a time when they need support, they are being told no. The result for many afflicted with these illnesses is poverty, a lack of hope and in a few tragic cases, suicide. It is my view that we no longer can ignore these illnesses or more important, the people afflicted by these illnesses.

The suffering of these people is real. This fact is acknowledged by Revenue Canada, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the College of Physicians and Surgeons in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Quebec, the Women's College Hospital in Toronto, the University of Toronto, Dalhousie University medical school in Halifax, the Alberta supreme court, the Peel and Waterloo school boards in Ontario, as well as the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centre for Disease Control. All of these organizations recognize these illnesses as ones that deserve our most attention.

There are other groups and organizations that recognize these diseases but in the spirit of saving time I am going to move on to talk about environmental medicine and the lack of it in many cases in certain parts of Canada.

For example, Canada has 25 doctors in environmental medicine. They are medical doctors who are familiar with these illnesses and know how to treat them. That compares with 1,400 licensed practitioners in the United States. Clearly we have an acute shortage of physicians who are trained to treat these devastating illnesses. Furthermore with only two medical schools, the University of Toronto and Dalhousie University, offering an elective course in this area, Canadian doctors are forced to train in the United States to practise in these areas.

Add to the situation the cost of the treatment. In many cases these treatments are not covered by the health care system.

I would like to share the remainder of my time with the Minister of National Defence who has a few comments on this issue.

[Health, June 2nd, 1999]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should recognize: (a) multiple chemical sensitivity, chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia as illnesses that have the capacity to cause disability; and (b) those suffering the disabling aspects of these diseases require protection and a strong moral commitment to their well-being.

Mr. Speaker, I know I have 15 minutes but should any time be left after I deliver my speech I would like to share my time with the Minister of National Defence, if that is agreeable with you.

[Infrastructure, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it has been reported recently that the government may be considering the introduction of a new infrastructure program to help with rebuilding roads and bridges.

I know my colleagues in the Tory party are not interested, but I would ask the President of the Treasury Board if that is the case and if such plans are in the works.

[Kuwait, May 31st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Kuwait is marking the new millennium in a special way. Recently the Kuwait cabinet and Emir made a historic decision that gave women the right to vote and run for office for the first time.

While Kuwait had many women in senior public and private sector positions, they were not able to fully participate in the democratic process.

On behalf of my colleagues in parliament and all Canadians, I would like to congratulate Ambassador Majdi Al-Dhafiri, his government and the people of Kuwait on this historic human rights decision.

[Canadian Armed Forces, May 31st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I was quite interested in my colleague's comments concerning partisanship in committees and in the House. However, I was quite disappointed that he spent seven out of ten minutes on partisan rhetoric. He was taking potshots with comments that had absolutely no foundation whatsoever. There is no truth to them whatsoever.

He then moved on to personally attack members of the House of Commons, some of whom are the finest leaders the country has had over its history. I do not want to spend my 10 minutes responding because it would take me a lot longer to respond from this end if I am to put the points on the line.

I want to go back to the motion before the House. It states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should have a standing committee of the House of Commons hold public hearings on every proposed procurement of goods or services by the Canadian Armed Forces valued at more than $100 million, in order to ensure that the procurement process is transparent and fair to all concerned.

I just want to refer members to a comment made to the standing committee on defence by a witness, Joseph Haddock, director for International Business (Canada), Sikorsky Canada Inc., on the issue of contracting out. He said that he was a veteran for over 29 years in the U.S. navy, that he was quite experienced and that he had been involved firsthand in the procurement aspect of the defence industry in the United States. He moved on to make a comment specifically on the whole issue of the public process of holding hearings. He said:

First, on a positive note, Canada's process appears to me to be simpler than the U.S. system with regard to the budgeting process. In the U.S. the multitude of congressional reviews and political manipulation of planned budgets wreak havoc on planning and execution, both from the government's perspective as well as industry's.

This gentleman's comments before the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs speak volumes. It is a golden statement which sums up what I would probably say in response to the motion proposed by my colleagues from the Reform Party.

I sit on the public accounts committee. I assure the House that when the auditor general senses there is even the slightest bit of a problem or perceived problem, and not necessarily a wrongdoing, he is out there like a hawk with his crew digging through thousands of papers. He goes through every single contract in any government department, crown corporation or agency that is involved. He never gives up until he gets to the bottom of a story. We already have an ombudsman who is always on the lookout to protect the interests of the public whenever he senses there is a potential problem.

Some of the finest public servants on this planet work for the Government of Canada, in the Department of Public Works and Government Services, the Department of National Defence and the Treasury Board. They go through the fine print of contracts that are for $100 million or more but even those that are less, to ensure they meet the objectives set out by the Government of Canada to ensure transparency and that the public is getting its money's worth and a return on its investment.

Certainly setting up another parliamentary committee to cross the country every time we have a project of $100 million is going to invite partisanship. It is going to invite regionalism and conflict. It will open the door for possible political pressure and political lobbying of all sorts. It will not serve the public interest.

Why do we want to create another bureaucracy when we already have a multitude of agencies that do exactly the kind of thing my colleague wants to do? There is absolutely nothing preventing any member of the House or any member of a committee of the House from inspecting or bringing in the head of an agency, a deputy minister or a minister to appear before a committee to answer questions with regard to a contract.

I would say this government, this society and this country enjoy the finest when it comes to the public tendering process and to dealing with the public purse. As a parliamentarian I am proud of what the Department of National Defence and the Department of Public Works and Government Services are doing in the field in conjunction with Treasury Board. I have every faith they are doing a fine job, far away from political interference, public pressure and regional interests that might come into play from time to time with major contracts.

Certainly I am not going to hide the fact that if a company in my constituency was bidding on a $100 million contract and a parliamentary committee was holding hearings across the country on the project, you bet I would make submissions to the committee saying that the company was doing a great job and it would do a fine job if it got the contract. That is the nature of the beast.

As politicians we have a responsibility to protect the interests of those in our constituencies who create jobs. I am right to do that. But if every one of my colleagues is going to do the same thing I am doing, we are going to create confusion if not chaos in the political process. As well we are going to put that specific committee in an extremely awkward position. At the end of the day, when somebody has to make a decision and the yeas and the nays are given, somebody is going to be happy and somebody else is going to be unhappy, just like everything else in life.

To that extent, if it is not broken, why fix it? The system works. It works effectively and efficiently. It is transparent. It is one of the finest systems in the world. Let us protect the integrity of the system. Let us leave the political interference out of it.

I will be voting against this motion when it comes before the House.

[Finance, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as you may know, there is no international standard for public accounting. When the Government of Canada issues its financial statement, tangible assets such as properties are not included in the balance sheet.

Can the Minister of Finance tell the House if he is concerned about the lack of standards? Would he support the efforts of the public accounts committee in this area?

[Reform Of International Organizations, May 27th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to congratulate my colleague for putting this motion before parliament. Certainly it has triggered quite a bit of debate and interest. It is quite timely to speak about issues of importance not only to our country but to the world as a whole.

I do have some problems with the motion because it mixes two different animals. I wish it had focused on only one element, either the United Nations or the international financial institution. We would have had a more meaningful debate.

I am going to talk a bit about the economic situation around the world and what Canada is doing as a nation both on the bilateral level and on the multilateral level in order to push forward the agenda of reform, not only for international financial institutions but also for international financial stability.

As one would say, if something is rumbling in my tummy it is time for something good to eat. If a nation is not doing well economically and if the people of a nation do not have enough food on the table, that to a large extent could create not only an economic destabilizing factor but also a political destabilizing factor. It is extremely important to have good economic stability in a society in order to have good political stability.

Canada on that front has done a tremendous amount of work. For the record I would like to indicate some of the initiatives this government has taken when dealing with poor countries and their debts.

Over $53 million has been contributed to the most indebted countries trust funds. The government has given an additional $33 million of which $21 million has been earmarked for use by the African Development Bank and $1 million for Guyana. The government has written off a large portion of its outstanding official assistance debt to the poorest countries. To date we have forgiven over $1.2 billion in overseas development assistance debt.

In 1992 the previous government announced a major debt conversion initiative for Latin America involving up to $145 million of CIDA as well as ODA debt into local currency to help finance environment and development projects. So far about six countries have taken advantage of it, such as Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Peru and Costa Rica. An agreement has been reached with the Dominican Republic and should be signed sometime in the near future.

On the multilateral level the government outlined at the 1995 G-7 meeting in Halifax a six point plan. One is to ensure appropriate monetary policy through the G-7 central banks, paying close attention and giving appropriate weight to the risk of a future slowdown in the global economy. The second is expeditious action to strengthen national financial systems and international oversight. Third is development of a practical guide or road map for safe capital liberalization in developing countries. Fourth is the agreement to work urgently toward a better mechanism to involve private sector investors in the resolution of a financial crisis, including the possibility of an emergency standstill clause. Finally, there is greater attention to the needs of the poorest countries to ensure they receive the resources and support they need to reduce poverty and begin growing.

Let me stress one point out of this six point plan, the strengthening of the financial systems around the world. Very few countries around the world put out financial statements indicating the financial affairs of their nation.

There is no international standard. Different countries report in different ways on the state of the nation when it comes to the financial end of things. To that extent, Canada is one of the best countries in the world when it comes to issuing its annual financial statements, which makes it one of the most transparent economies in the world.

One of the first things that we have to do as a society, as a government and as a parliament is to work at the bilateral level to encourage and assist countries, in particular third world countries, to start developing proper financial statements so that at the end of the year the people of that country, whether private sector, public sector or taxpayers as a whole, will be able to see how the government is spending its money. Then corruption could be reduced and eventually eliminated.

There are many countries around the world that do not issue financial statements. As a result, nobody knows what those countries have in terms of revenues or expenditures. That is a major scandal internationally. It is one of the leading causes for a lot of the problems and economic troubles around the world.

There are some countries in Asia-Pacific that have not issued financial statements for the past seven years. Some countries have not had financial statements from their governments for the past 15 or 20 years. Others are working on 1991 financial statements. Those very same countries have gone through very difficult and troubling economic times.

Before one talks about reform of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, one really has to address the fundamental issue of transparency around the world when it comes to the proper reporting of governments with annual financial statements.

If it was up to me, frankly, I would synchronize and eliminate some of the organizations. I would fold them into the World Trade Organization so that we would have one economic power around the world that would govern. I would bring in the International Monetary Fund as a part of that economic organization. I would bring in the World Bank, the OECD, APEC, the G-8 and every other organization under the economic umbrella of the World Trade Organization. Once that was done, and it would take quite a bit of time, then I would talk about making the World Trade Organization a part of the United Nations. Then we would have a body that would govern both politically on the one hand and economically on the other.

Simply having a meeting to bring a bunch of politicians together, most of the time, is extremely counterproductive and will not give us the results we want.

I want to thank my hon. colleague for bringing this issue before the House because it has given us a chance to put our views on the record. It triggered a very interesting debate and I hope we will have a chance to further debate issues such as this in the future.

I would say that everything starts at home and I want to take this opportunity to commend the Department of Finance and the Government of Canada for being so proactive, not only here at the local level in Canada but at the international level, in bringing about reforms to international financial institutions and also in assisting countries to bring about transparency, economic development and prosperity for their people, for our people and for the world as a whole.

[Carriage By Air Act, May 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My colleague knows full well that he is not supposed to mention the Senate in the House. If he wants to say the other place that is fine, but he should not name it by name. The member knows that.

[Carriage By Air Act, May 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I am sure it was not my colleague's intention to name the other place. Usually members do not name the other place in this House because both Houses are different from one another.