Jesse Flis

[Nuclear Weapons, November 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as the government has repeatedly stated in the House and internationally, Canada is deeply committed to early conclusion of the comprehensive test treaty which will prohibit all nuclear testing for all time.

A draft resolution dealing with the nuclear testing issue is currently being negotiated at the first committee of the United Nations. As the text now stands, Canada intends to vote in favour of the resolution.

While Canada had initially co-sponsored a draft resolution, we had made very clear that we had reservations about one of the paragraphs in the resolution that could have brought into question

the commitments made by nuclear weapon states at the 1995 NPT review and expansion conference.

Canada intends to vote in favour of the resolution, but it will not be co-sponsoring it.

[Department Of Health Act, November 7th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to have a few more minutes. Before being cut off I was responding to Bloc Quebecois members yesterday when they stated that the federal government had no right dabbling in health care. They failed to realize that a country must have certain standards. Hopefully the act will provide the standards.

I had experience with the health services of the province many years ago when it brought in a universal health care system. Line ups were so long that patients started paying doctors under the table to jump the queue. We do not want that. It demonstrates that people who have money get the care prior to the ones who do not have money. That is not the Liberal way of doing things and it is not the Canadian way of doing things.

We have heard the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health repeat over and over in the House that whether we are rich or poor we get the same health care, the same health services.

The bill hopes to save taxpayers money by doing things more efficiently, by co-operating with the provinces, the municipalities and the federal government. How can we best deliver health services taking into account today's technologies? People are sent home almost the same day they are operated on or the next day. By using these technologies hopefully we will be able to do things more efficiently.

This morning the Reform Party was jumping up, shouting and saying that there was nothing new in the bill. Its members offered their proposal. Their proposal is the American proposal where over 69 million Americans do not have proper health care. The polls show very clearly that Canadians do not want that.

My daughter just graduated from university and is now working. In the time of budget cuts when we had to reduce our deficit and our public debt I asked her as a young Canadian going out into the workforce who could pay for her health care, et cetera, what she would like the federal government to protect. Her answer was very interesting. Of all things the federal government is involved in she chose health care. She asked us not to touch health care. This is a Canadian starting out in the workforce, having graduated from university.

We are not building Canada for ourselves. We are building Canada for future generations, for our children and for their children. This is why the federal government has to take leadership. We cannot turn it over to jurisdictions where there will be no national standards. We cannot turn it over to a system where in one province we have to pay a lot more for an operation than in another province. Then people start flocking to the province where services are more available.

A personal friend of mine flew in from Florida for an operation in a Toronto hospital. He was a Canadian on vacation in Florida. Unfortunately there was not a bed for him. He had to fly to a Saskatoon hospital but did not make it. Is that the kind of health care we want, or do we want the kind of health care that when I need a triple bypass I get it right away because otherwise it may be too late?

Let us build a country wherein it will not be too late to have an operation. Let us build a country where everyone has equal access when they need it.

[Department Of Health Act, November 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-95, under which the new Department of Health will be established.

I listened carefully to the member for Calgary Centre. It was very clear he had not read the bill. He did not know what he was talking about. He was looking at the old bill instead of the new one. This is why a new bill was brought in, to save taxpayers' money and to have a health system to which all Canadians have access.

The Reform Party boasts about its great plan. The United States has that great plan, the two tier system that Reform advocates. What is happening in the United States system right now? According to figures released yesterday, 40 million Americans are not covered by any kind of health insurance and 29 million are underinsured. Sixty-nine million people do not have proper health care coverage. That is what Reform Party members want to give Canadians. Canadians do not want that system. They can shove it and they know where. Enough is enough.

Reform members want to give everything to the provinces so they can throw more money at it. We do not think throwing more money at the problem is the answer. It is using the money we have more efficiently for the modern technology that has come into our hospitals and our clinics.

When I lived in Saskatchewan I had an operation. Because of complications I was a whole month in hospital. Now an appendix can be removed and the patient is sent home. How many people have triple bypasses? Before they were told to lie in bed and not to move for weeks on end. Now they get them up walking the next day and they soon send them home. Look at the savings. If we send a patient home, we have to send proper care to the home with them.

However it is a heck of a lot cheaper than having the patient lie in a hospital bed for weeks on end.

Canada spends 9.4 per cent of its GDP on health care, far less than the U.S., yet every Canadian is covered well by health care. Japan spends only 6 per cent of GDP on health care. How can that country do it so cheaply? I think it is good management. It is done efficiently but Japan also harnesses the modern technology that has crept into the health system.

We do not need any lessons from the Reform Party. Polls show that Canadians are very pleased with our health system. The polls also show that the Reform Party is going down and this is why it is going down.

Yesterday I intervened on the bill briefly when the Bloc Quebecois complained that the federal government has no jurisdiction in the area of health care. I hope to assure the Bloc Quebecois that the government fully appreciates that provinces are responsible for all aspects of health care delivery, generally defined as hospital and medical services. However, the opinion poll indicates that Canadians recognize there remains a need for a federal presence in health, just as we have a federal presence in other jurisdictions. If changes are made to the Criminal Code, the provinces then implement the legislation and the laws that we change.

This morning the foreign affairs standing committee met and the CCC was before us. That is the Canadian corporation which does trade with countries. These countries want a federal government presence in a deal, otherwise we would not get a deal for a lot of these things. So let us not throw the federal government out completely.

I was very interested in the media conference the former Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Elliott Trudeau had yesterday. He cautioned not to decentralize all of the powers because that is when this country will fall apart. He advocated a strong central government. Here is someone from Quebec who is giving us advice that we should heed.

Public opinion, the media, the members of this House have one thing in common: They have a legitimate concern about the future health system and the need for continued access to high quality services. By defending the Canada Health Act from attack by those who advocate user fees and private clinics, as the Reform does, the Department of Health protects this country's publicly funded universal medicare system.

Health care is only one of many factors contributing to health. There are also those factors that make and keep people healthy, known as the determinants of health. These include the social and physical environment, human biology, genetic endowment, economic status and individual behaviour.

In a recent discussion paper entitled "Strategies for Population Health: Investing in the Health of Canadians" federal, provincial and territorial health ministers provided a framework for action on the major determinants of health. It offers a solid basis for setting priorities to continue to improve the health of Canadians.

The paper recommends three strategic directions. First, it recommends strengthening public and government understanding of the determinants of health by demonstrating the links between social status, economic development, income distribution, education and health. Second, it recommends building understanding and support among government partners in sectors outside of health. Third, it suggests priority initiatives which will have a significant impact on population health.

I urge all members to put their party politics aside. When we have something good, something Canadian, something that will keep this country together, something that will provide health care service to every Canadian, rich or poor, regardless of where he or she lives, let us all get behind it and pass it today.

[Department Of Health Act, November 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the words of the member for Bourassa. I wonder if he could clarify a few things.

He again reminds us that he is a sovereignist. I do not know what that has to do with this bill. I would remind him to reflect on the words the former Premier of Quebec and his own leader used about the kinds of people they want to live in that part of Canada. So when he says he is a sovereignist, I assume he means that he is a Canadian sovereignist.

I get this feeling in statements in the foreign affairs committee and in the House that to that party everything seems to be a provincial jurisdiction. There seems to be nothing left for the federal government and provinces to co-operate on. Here is a bill that calls for co-operation to maintain health standards across Canada and keep costs down, and the hon. member cannot even support that.

He quoted from clause 2. I refer him to paragraph (i), where the minister's powers, duties, and functions relating to health include "co-operation with provincial authorities with a view to the co-ordination of efforts made or proposed for preserving and improving public health". Is the hon. member honestly against this kind of a bill?

He also went on to say that he is against the two-tier system. Great, I agree with him. So am I, and so is everyone on this side of the House, the government side. How does he expect to prevent the two-tier system if he allows health care to be the total responsibility of the province?

My wife happens to live in Ontario and her brothers live in Quebec. Their mother used to switch from Quebec to Ontario. She would live at her son's at one time and at her daughter's another time. If each province is responsible for its own health system, their mother could not have done that. Under the present system she was able to move from province to province and have her prescriptions, doctor bills, and everything covered. Thank God, she lived to 89. She had gone through Siberia and had the kind of life that no one would want to hear about in this House. Yet she lived in this country happily until she was 89 because of the health system in this country and because of the standards that were kept from province to province.

I would like the hon. member to clarify what he means. He is against the two-tier system, yet he wants no federal involvement at all. How does he expect to maintain Canadian standards if he wants health to be the sole jurisdiction of the provinces?

[National Housing Act, November 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her concerns and for raising these issues. She ran and I ran and I think most people in this House ran on one theme in our platform, which was prosperity and job creation.

The more homes made available to Canadians the more jobs are created. When you consider what is bought when someone purchases a home, people mention immediately fridges, stoves, et cetera, but those you need in an apartment when you do not buy a home. Think of all the other infrastructure, the landscaping, the garden, the paving of the driveway and how many jobs this creates.

I am glad we are having this debate because the member mentioned her experience with the Polish ambassador and his interest in our housing system. When I was taking cour des français in Saint-Jean, I met with a representative of a company from Quebec who wants to export 240 homes to Krakow, Poland. The technology is totally Canadian, totally Quebec. It would be shipped out to Poland all prefab and later put together.

Imagine the kind of job creation that project alone would have. However, the problem in Poland was that people cannot get mortgages to buy those homes. Poland is looking very closely at the legislation we are discussing today because through such a program the people in Krakow, Poland could buy those 240 homes.

If it is successful, we can repeat this model not only in Poland, but in Ukraine, in Russia, all over the world. This would be a niche for Canadian manufacturers of housing. This would be a niche for getting into the export field.

The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade is now looking at how we can help the SMEs, the small and medium sized companies, to get into the export market. We have such great entrepreneurs who are sharing their expertise with our foreign affairs committee. Again, I keep stressing jobs because if you increase exports by $1 million, you have created about 35 new jobs. When you are exporting in the billions, imagine the kind of jobs that will create.

We have a beautiful country. We have a country like no other in the world. Let us stick together. Let us co-operate with every province and the nation. Let us co-operate with every province and the world. We have expertise such as I have mentioned here and we

will keep our number one position. Not only that, but we will improve the lifestyle of people in other countries.

I thank the member for that question.

[National Housing Act, November 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, wherever government involvement creates unfair competition, I feel government has no right to be there. However, the mortgage insurance that is provided with this legislation is fair and equal competition. It provides insurance for people who would normally not get it through private insurance companies. By providing this alternative, it keeps the rates down also. If we believe in the free market forces, which I do, it is good for consumers, because it does keep the rates down and it makes mortgage insurance available to those who otherwise would not get the insurance and consequently would not be able to purchase a home.

We made some amendments not long ago about allowing first time homebuyers to make a down payment of just 5 per cent. This was another good move to make home ownership more accessible and affordable to more Canadians. It is the same with the insurance.

[National Housing Act, November 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said about CMHC's involvement in providing insurance so that more people can afford homes. I would like to touch on the area of social housing and the way the National Housing Act and CMHC have helped in the social housing. I would like to use experiences in my riding.

Canadians of Lithuanian descent in my constituency saw the need for housing for seniors. In no way could these seniors afford individual homes, et cetera, so they built Vilnius Manor. How did they build it? They got a long term mortgage from CMHC at a very low percentage over a long period of time. Today these seniors are enjoying one of the most beautiful homes in Toronto, probably. In this home the seniors not only mix with Canadians of other heritages but they can also hear their own language. They can also see part of their own culture that they brought with them to Canada. It is a real success story, situated right on Bloor Street in Toronto.

An example of a similar project, again funded or assisted by CMHC, is Copernicus Lodge. A group of Polish descent built Copernicus Lodge as a home for seniors. It was filled up before it was even completed. In these models some people have to pay the full rent and others get a subsidized rent. Again, there is a women's auxiliary with this Copernicus Lodge who provide activities for the seniors. You will not see happier Canadian citizens than the ones living at Copernicus Lodge.

Another example in my constituency is Wawel Villa. Again thanks to CMHC funding a group of seniors can live in Wawel Villa just opposite High Park. They can walk through the park and enjoy life in their older years.

I had the experience also of helping Canadians of Latvian descent to build Kristus Darzs in the Woodbridge area. Again, this home would never have been built if it were not for the assistance of long term loans from CMHC.

I hope this program will never be cut. We have thousands of such homes across Canada providing comfortable living for those in these kinds of homes.

A problem is beginning to develop that I would like to share with the minister, the mover of this bill. As these people age in these homes they now need more intensive care. Many need ongoing nursing care. Many require chronic care assistance and they do not want to move out. These homes were not built for these kinds of clients.

Do they move out? Where do they move to? Most of them want to stay. All the homes I have mentioned are looking. Copernicus Lodge has already built a second phase. They have floors that provide more intensive care for the people who need it. This is a problem that is facing our country. We build affordable homes for senior citizens as they get into their eighties and nineties. And I am so pleased that many are living into their eighties and nineties, and some are reaching a hundred and over. But they need special care.

Rather than move the people out, we have to provide in these homes more intensive assistance, which requires a different kind of personnel. It requires highly trained nurses, psychologists, social workers, and so on. Yet these are the areas where unfortunately the Conservative provincial government is cutting back. I do not know why the Premier of Ontario wants to cut back on the backs of seniors. I believe we have to reduce our deficit. We have to run a much leaner government, but not a meaner government, such as the province of Ontario appears to be doing. This is an important issue, which will be facing the country even more intensively.

This brings me to the issue of jurisdictions. We have been talking over the last month about perhaps moving some of the powers the federal government has to provincial jurisdictions and co-operating with the provinces to decide who can deliver these programs the best.

We are talking about federal programs in housing. The province of Ontario also is involved in housing. If someone in the greater Toronto area wants a subsidized unit, they go to the metropolitan Toronto level. The city of Toronto has a program called City Homes to help people with affordable housing. There are four levels of government-federal, provincial, metro Toronto, and Toronto-all involved in housing.

If we want to keep the country together, these are the areas we must look at to see who can deliver the housing programs best, most efficiently, et cetera. And let us talk with the other levels of government. If there is one level that can do it better, fine, it can take over a certain area. If the federal government can do it better, it would take over, with the caution that the federal government will still need a strong central government to maintain standards coast to coast to coast, be it in housing, day care, or health care.

I wanted to put on the record the kind of assistance my constituency received thanks to the type of bill we are amending here today, the National Housing Act.

The House has heard the problems that are facing the Parkdale area of my riding, with prostitution, drug trade, high school dropouts, et cetera. We are trying to analyse why in one part of my riding there is such a heavy concentration of all these social problems yet in another part of the riding there are not the same problems. One thing, in my analysis, that contributed to this is the

lack of home ownership in the troubled area. In that area only six per cent of the population own their homes.

Again, if all levels of government got together to make it possible for people to afford their own homes and build a family unit, et cetera, I think we would reduce the numbers and the kinds of problems facing the Parkdale area. We are working on it, but we do need help from legislation such as we have here today.

[Quebec Referendum, October 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we are not only pleased but proud to announce that Canada's 1995 exports are 20.3 per cent higher than the same period last year.

Our trade surplus with the United States is nearly $5.4 billion higher than for the same period last year. To date our trade surplus with the world is more than $7.1 billion from 1994. This is testimony to the dynamic nature of the business women and men working together across the country.

Canada's membership in OPEC, the World Trade Organization and NAFTA places it in a position to do business in the international markets, unlike individual provinces.

This is testimony that on Monday if we want this prosperity to continue through trade, if we want jobs to increase through exports, we will vote no.

[Income Tax Conventionsimplementation Act, 1995, October 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the conventions we were talking about this morning under Bill C-105 are actually patterned to a large extent on the model double taxation convention prepared by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development.

Under the convention a general rate of withholding tax of 5 per cent will apply to dividends paid to a parent company and on branch profits and 10 per cent on interest and royalties. The rate of withholding tax on other dividends is set at 15 per cent. The convention also provides for a number of exemptions in the case of interest.

The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade is holding many meetings with small and medium size Canadian companies. These companies are already exporting Canadian goods to other countries or are interested in penetrating the export market.

I compliment the committee for taking on the task to stimulate exports where $1 million in trade can create over 30 or 35 jobs. If we want to create more jobs in the country, which is the mandate of the government, there are two ways of doing it: first, by increasing our exports for companies that have never been in the export market and, second, by encouraging those who are exporting to increase their exports by 5 per cent, 10 per cent or 15 per cent.

We were very pleased that some of the witnesses who appeared this morning talked about trading with companies such as the ones mentioned in the bill.

The fact that we have Canadians who came here from countries around the world makes Canada a great country. We have to capitalize on our strengths. Some Canadians understand not only the languages of Hungary, Latvia and Estonia, Trinidad and Tobago but the cultures. It is very important when trading with a country to know its culture. This is why it is important to preserve our policy of bilingualism and multiculturalism.

Before question period I debated with the hon. member for Jonquiére who tried to compare the province of Quebec with small countries such as Estonia, Latvia, Hungary, Lithuania, et cetera. He was really comparing apples and oranges because la belle province is a beautiful province within Canada. When I think of Canada I include the territories and all the provinces.

I reminded the hon. member that better protection there would not be to preserve the French language than having it entrenched in the Canadian Constitution and in our overall policy. That language will never die in Canada if we stay united and keep our country strong. However, if we start splitting up the country and if Quebec separates, that guarantee of the French language and French culture

will no longer be there. When the people of Quebec vote on October 30 I hope they will take that into consideration.

The referendum is glossed over with fancy language. The referendum question should read: Do you want to separate from Canada? Yes or no. If it were worded that way I think we would find that the majority of Canadians living in Quebec, regardless of origin, would vote no. Canada has been twice declared by the United Nations the number one country in the world in which to live. Canada has been identified as the second richest country on the planet, next to Australia.

Why would any Canadian or any province want to separate? It is nonsense. That is why we need bills like Bill C-105 so that all Canadians interested in exporting, be it to Estonia, Latvia or Trinidad and Tobago, have the freedom to do so and at the same time have the protection of not being double taxed, of not losing their profits and of not being taxed unfairly.

These are agreements we have already signed with 55 other countries. It is nothing new. I am pleased that the official opposition and the third party, if I heard correctly, will be supporting the bill.

I appreciate the opportunity to take part in the debate. I remind all Canadians, especially people living in la belle province, that we have something no other country in the world has. Let us keep it that way.

[Income Tax Conventionsimplementation Act, 1995, October 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to participate in the debate on Bill C-105, an act to implement a convention between Canada and the republic of Latvia, a conven-

tion between Canada and the republic of Estonia, a convention between Canada and the republic of Trinidad and Tobago, and a protocol between Canada and the republic of Hungary, for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income.

As the bill states, the purpose of this enactment is to implement income tax conventions that have been signed with Latvia, Estonia, Trinidad and Tobago, and a protocol to the income tax convention with Hungary. As the bill says, these treaties have been signed. The treaty with Latvia was signed in Ottawa on April 26, 1995. The agreement with Estonia was signed in Tallinn on June 2, 1995. The agreement with Trinidad and Tobago was signed in Toronto on September 11 of this year. The protocol with Hungary was signed back on May 3, 1994 in Budapest.

Tax treaties are designed to alleviate double taxation of income earned in one country by a person resident in another country. While the present position of Latvia, Estonia, Trinidad and Tobago, and Hungary limits the potential for additional investment by residents of these countries in Canada, the tax treaties in question will certainly be helpful to Canadian corporations and individuals with operations and investments in those countries.

As the parliamentary secretary has already alerted this House, these agreements contain provisions on withholding tax, on capital gains, on non-discrimination-discrimination is prohibited but only on the basis of the nationality of the taxpayers-pensions and annuities, and double taxation relief.

These are important agreements. They now must be approved by Parliament to make them official.

I have been in these countries, except for Trinidad and Tobago. I have visited Latvia, Estonia and Hungary. I was in these countries before they were sovereign countries, when they were forced to be under the Soviet Union. I have visited them after they obtained their independence. Canada was one of the first countries to recognize the independence of the three Baltic states and Hungary, et cetera.

I would like to differ with my colleague from Jonquière very strongly. He tries to compare Quebec to these countries. I hope he will read his history. Latvia and Estonia, which are mentioned in this bill, were sovereign countries at one time but they had their sovereignty taken away from them by the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. That was not the people's choice; it was forced on them. Now through democratic elections they are choosing their own governments. That is why these countries are now ready to do business with the western world and the entire globe.

I was in those two countries just last summer and in Hungary two years ago. All of those countries are open for business. So is Trinidad and Tobago, but I have never been there so I cannot speak for it, but the other three countries are open for business. They do not want handouts, although we have helped them a lot with our technical assistance program.

The technical co-operation program has been placed under CIDA. We have helped those countries in language training for example. Many people living in Estonia speak nothing but Russian. In order to obtain their citizenship they must learn Estonian. There is a big demand for learning Estonian very quickly. We are helping Estonians with the technology for teaching languages.

I wish the hon. member would read his history and not compare la belle province with sovereign countries like the three Baltic states, Hungary, et cetera.

I was very shocked to hear the hon. member say that Canadians want to see French disappear. Where has the hon. member been for the last 10 years? I was in education for 27 years. The big trend was to have children attend total immersion French programs. Children from British Columbia to Newfoundland are graduating having spoken the two official languages from as early as grade 3.

The hon. member was concerned that there is no preservation of the French language. The Constitution of Canada preserves the French language. If Quebec separates, that guarantee is gone. That is why Quebecers have to be shown very clearly what they are going to vote for on October 30. It is: Do you want to separate from Canada, period? If you do, along with everything else Quebec may lose is the protection of the French language and French culture.

I am very emotional about that because my wife happens to come from Quebec. Most of her family lives in la belle province. I am so pleased when my nieces and nephews write to me. I have a card in my office which I invite the hon. member to come and see. It reads: Mon oncle, je t'aime. My uncle, I love you. When my niece sees me she tells me the same thing: "Wujek, ja Cie kocham". She will also tell me: "Uncle, I love you". It is great that in a province, le beau Québec, Canadians can grow up with three languages. What more can we ask for? Not only protecting the French language, but also allow young Canadians to grow up in these other-