Bryon Wilfert

[Budget Implementation Act, 2000, June 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I did not vote on the last vote and would like to be recorded as voting with the government on this one.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[56Th Anniversary Of D-Day, June 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I can think of no better way to honour our veterans on this 56th anniversary of D-Day than to share my late father's recollections.

He was a member of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. He said: “We had mixed feelings on that late spring day. Some were apprehensive, some with zeal, but all had a prayer on our lips as we huddled in our assault crafts. The sky was blanketed with allied aircraft and the great ships fired continuous salvos at the French coast. It is a wonder how the enemy could have survived. The noise was deafening. The channel was very rough. A destroyer came close to us. The waves from her bow were higher than our craft and she looked the height of the Queen Mary to me”.

Many of the soldiers were seasick and just wanted to get to shore, no matter what was waiting for them.

“Finally we neared the beach, and then my assault craft hit a mine or was hit by a shell, I am not sure, but I was thrown into the air and then into the water, semi-conscious, weighted down with my grenades and bandolier. I struggled free and then passed out. I was picked up and was in hospital in England when I awoke. I was one of the lucky ones”.

We are the lucky ones because they left us with a lasting reminder of their courage and devotion to their country—freedom.

[International Organizations, May 19th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the motion currently before the House in its amended form calls on the government to continue and intensify efforts with other nations to further develop multilateral initiatives in order to strengthen the capacity of the international organizations to enable them to identify the precursors to conflict and improve their conflict prevention capabilities.

Canada attaches great importance to conflict prevention and improving existing international capabilities for early warning. We continue to be involved in ongoing efforts to strengthen the existing tools of international conflict prevention in a variety of fora which have been discussed in previous debates.

Today I will highlight the important work of the G-8 in the area of conflict prevention. As mentioned in previous debates, the G-8, of which Canada is an active member, is seized of this issue. In advance of the G-8 summit in Japan this July, officials have held several policy meetings on a variety of subjects, including conflict prevention.

At a meeting of the G-8 conflict prevention officials in March of this year, it was agreed that recommendations would be made in advance of the leader's summit to undertake a series of initiatives related to small arms, conflict and development, diamonds, and children in armed conflict.

Canada has been heavily involved in advancing key aspects of the human security agenda in the G-8 context and working to ensure efforts complement work in other fora, in particular the UN Security Council.

The work undertaken by the G-8 conflict prevention officials reveals a strong commitment to the implementation of the Berlin communiqué agreed to in December 1999.

There has been considerable development of action oriented conflict prevention initiatives which will draw on the comparative advantage of the G-8 in specific areas. Officials also recognize the importance of effective consideration of the economic side of the conflict prevention in order to ensure a truly comprehensive and coherent approach by G-8 partners.

The G-8 is working in support of national, regional and global efforts to ensure that the challenges of destabilizing proliferation of small arms faced by the international community are addressed.

The G-8 conflict prevention officials have advanced several ideas in response to these challenges which will lessen the impact of destabilization, accumulations of small arms on ongoing conflict, as well as preventing new conflicts.

In particular, the G-8 intends to continue exercising a high degree of responsibility in licensing exports of small arms, while recognizing legitimate defence and security concerns of importing states. It will be implemented in conjunction with demand side measures. In this context the G-8 conflict prevention officials stress the importance of the adoption of the ECOWAS moratorium on the importation, exportation and manufacture of light weapons in October 1998.

The G-8 intends to work to ensure that its expert policies and decisions respect the moratorium and will provide support to capacity building projects in states directly affected by illicit small arms trafficking.

Recognizing that economic growth and sustainable development will exist only when there is peace and democratic stability, the G-8 will promote the consideration of conflict prevention and development assistance strategies. It will enhance assistance to ensure a focused, quick response with the aim of conflict prevention. It will ensure a smooth transition from emergency humanitarian assistance to development assistance in the post-conflict stage.

Specifically the G-8 will work with bilateral and multilateral actors and the international financial institution to promote and develop good governance and respect for the rule of law, including capacity building of administrative, police and judicial institutions.

Along with the organizations such as the OECD development assistance committee, DAC, the G-8 will also monitor and assess bilateral donors practices in seeking to address conflict prevention within the broader development assistance strategies.

As Canada has advanced as chair of the UN security counsel Angola sanctions committee, there is international recognition that illicit trade of certain high value commodities, in this case particularly diamonds, provides funds for arms purchases, which fuels conflict and creates humanitarian crises. This is evidenced by the ongoing conflicts in Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sierra Leone.

The G-8 conflict prevention officials have called for producing and consuming countries and leaders in the diamond industry to ensure transparency and accountability in the diamond trade.

The G-8 also supports the efforts of African states in strengthening regional law enforcement and internal capacity building for controlling the illicit trade of diamonds.

Of particular interest to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and many other Canadian parliamentarians is the impact of armed conflict on child participants and child victims.

I had the pleasure of leading as chair of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum a delegation in January to discuss this issue with parliamentarians from Asia, the United States and Latin America. Several approaches to the subject have been agreed upon by the G-8 conflict prevention officials.

These include maintaining pressure against those who involve or target children in armed conflict in breach of international standards such as the ILO convention on the elimination of the worst forms of child labour, which prohibits forced recruitment of those 18 years of age into armed forces and the early adoption of the optional protocol to the convention on the rights of the child on the involvement of children in armed conflict.

The G-8 continues to be an important forum for discussion on armed conflict prevention because of its important influence in setting the international agenda.

With four of the five permanent members of the United Nations security council and the largest financial contributors to the UN, the G-8 countries have much to offer in support of international conflict prevention initiatives.

Canada will continue to support continue to support, participate in and advocate strong co-ordination of initiatives at the G-8 and in other fora that seek to build national and international capacity to prevent conflict. I am pleased to conclude by saying that the government supports the amendment and the amended motion.

[Boating Safety, May 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans introduced new boating safety regulations, operator competency requirements, age and horsepower restrictions, and new minimum equipment requirements.

There were 200 fatalities last year. These can be prevented if people take appropriate safety precautions. What steps is the minister taking to promote these regulations in order that future tragedies can and will be prevented?

[Supply, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I point out to my colleague that last year the government restored $11.5 billion in health care transfer payments. It was the largest amount of money that any government put into the health care system. Again this year we put in $2.5 billion.

We have provinces crying for money at the same time as they are giving tax cuts. The Ontario government will mail every taxpayer in that province a $200 cheque. That is $1 billion. If it can afford those kind of tax cuts while sitting on half a billion dollars, it cannot cry wolf too often as it has.

Maybe my colleague might ask her kissing cousins in Ontario, although I am not too sure how close they are in terms of kissing any more, what is going on. How can it afford tax cuts but not afford to restore health care which according to her is a priority under its watch?

[Supply, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I outlined very clearly the process by which the federal government would respond if there were a violation of the Canada Health Act. Having the appropriate information and the proper monitoring is critical.

I will point out to my hon. colleague one of the difficulties we have. Earlier she talked about the fact the we as a federal government gave about 11 cents to 13 cents to the provinces. Again I want to correct that. It is about 33 cents to 34 cents in cash and tax points. I heard some provincial members say that they do not recognize tax points. If that is the case we should simply take them back.

In answer to my colleague, one way to add to the accountability of provinces that are responsible for the administration of health care is to add two new principles: accountability and transparency. If the provinces do not feel that the tax points are of much use to them, maybe the federal government should take them back and go back to silos. My hon. colleague from Regina Qu'Appelle mentioned the fact that we had gone to the CHST. I would suggest to him that maybe we should go back to silos and say that this is for health; this is for post-secondary education; and this is for social services. This would put the onus back on the provinces where it belongs.

In terms of accountability, when we transfer money to the provinces we have no idea what they do with it. Coming from the province of Ontario I can point out very clearly that the province is sitting on half a billion dollars. At this point it has the ability to provide for tax cuts, but it does not seem to be able to provide for the administration of hospitals, which is in its jurisdiction. Those are two principles that my hon. colleague might think about in this debate.

[Supply, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Mississauga West.

I am pleased to participate in today's debate concerning the Canada Health Act and to deal with the issue of enforcement.

The federal health minister is responsible for monitoring provincial and territorial health systems to ensure that they adhere to the criteria and conditions of the Canada Health Act.

Canada's publicly funded health care system is a partnership. In terms of the federal government, Health Canada is responsible for the administration of the Canada Health Act, while the provinces and the territories are responsible for the organization and the delivery of health care services in their respective jurisdictions. This shared role requires us to work in close co-operation with one another.

The Canada Health Act contains nine requirements that the provinces must fulfil to receive their full share of federal funds, which are provided to the provinces and territories in the form of tax points and cash under the CHST. These include the five program criteria of public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility, which apply to insured health services.

In addition to the five criteria, there are two conditions of the act, information and recognition, which apply to not only insured health services, but also extended health care services.

As members may know, insured health services are medically necessary hospital and physician services. Extended health care services are nursing home intermediate care services, adult residential care services, home care services and ambulatory care services. Finally, there are the extra billing and user charge provisions, which only apply to insured health services.

The Canada Health Act provides sufficient flexibility for the provinces and territories to restructure their health care systems so that they continue to respond to the individual needs of their populations.

Changes to Canada's public health care system can occur without violating the principles of the Canada Health Act. We all know that the time has come for a national effort to renew and strengthen medicare. All governments believe that the status quo is no longer an option. The changes required can and should occur within our public health care system. The principles of the Canada Health Act are broad and flexible enough to allow for innovation while building on the strengths of our single payer system.

The federal government's commitment to maintaining the principles of the act is to ensure that the integrity of one of the best health care systems in the world is not jeopardized and that Canadians continue to have access to a comprehensive range of medically necessary services on the basis of their need, not on their ability to pay.

Many potential issues of non-compliance with the Canada Health Act criteria or conditions over the years have been resolved without resorting to CHA penalties. In these instances, discussion and negotiation at the official level were instrumental in bringing these matters to a satisfactory conclusion.

In the event that discussions and negotiations between the federal and provincial officials prove ineffective in reaching a resolution, the Canada Health Act provides a process by which suspected violations can be investigated and resolved, or indeed penalized.

When the federal health minister receives information and is of the opinion that there is a suspected violation of the act, the minister must undertake consultations with provincial and territorial counterparts. Only after these consultations does the minister proceed to invoke the penalty provisions of the act, if the facts of the matter under investigation confirm that a CHA violation has occurred.

Under the Canada Health Act penalties for violations of the criteria and conditions are financial. The government uses moral suasion and financial penalties under the CHST to persuade the provinces and territories to take corrective action.

While the government is prepared to act if there are violations, let me reiterate that it is always our hope that we do not reach that point, that issues of potential non-compliance can be resolved through discussions and negotiations, without resorting to penalties.

There are broad, fundamental challenges which are facing the health care system in Canada. The federal government is committed to working with the provinces and the territories to meet these challenges. We would always prefer to build on the co-operative relationship we have shared with provinces and territories over the years, and to build on the creativity and innovation which created our public health care system that is the envy of the world.

In response to the auditor general's concerns about Health Canada's capacity to enforce its responsibilities vis-à-vis the Canada Health Act, the federal minister made a statement to the House of Commons on Thursday, May 11, announcing a budget increase of $4 million to the existing $1.5 million for the Canada Health Act division. This will allow for an increased enforcement capacity to monitor and assess compliance with the act across Canada, as well as to investigate potential non-compliance issues on a proactive basis.

As well, the announcement of the realignment of the administration of activities at Health Canada on April 17 will strengthen the department's regional presence and increase the policy and analysis capability in the regions to strengthen Health Canada's ability to monitor Canada Health Act compliance on the ground.

Information is an essential tool for the federal government in administering the Canada Health Act. To that end, Health Canada is developing an improved information gathering framework that will assist the federal government in improving its monitoring, assessment and reporting of provincial and territorial compliance with the criteria and conditions of the Canada Health Act.

Health Canada's response to the auditor general's report, and to Alberta's bill 11, will result in the development of a process which will ensure a comprehensive and fair approach to the administration of the Canada Health Act. This new approach will take time to implement and requires the support of our provincial partners. This is why the government is working closely and collaboratively with the provinces and territories on all the issues related to the Canada Health Act.

Our goal is to ensure that the underlying principles of our health care system are protected for the benefit of all Canadians. By working with the provinces we are putting a much needed emphasis on making the co-operation and administration of our cherished, publicly financed health care system more transparent and accountable to Canadians.

In closing, I want to reaffirm the government's commitment to working with the provinces and territories to ensure compliance with the principles and conditions of the Canada Health Act. The changes that are needed to see us into the 21st century are possible within the public health care system, and are fully consistent with and supportive of the principles of the Canada Health Act.

[Canada Everest 2000, May 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I announce that at 8.10 a.m. Eastern Standard Time this morning, after climbing for 16 hours, Ben Webster of Richmond Hill was the first Canadian this year to reach the top of Mount Everest.

Out of 75 climbers currently on the mountain, Ben and his Canada Everest 2000 teammates, support specialist Mike Drolet, also of Richmond Hill, and Quebec climbers Claude Berubé, Francois Bedard and Benoit Robitaille, are on top of the world today.

It was indeed a proud moment for Ben, who, proudly sporting the Canadian maple leaf on his jacket, noted that being first at the pinnacle could never have happened without the strong Canadian team with him.

No team mounts such an effort on its own. Complete with sponsors from coast to coast to coast, Canada Everest 2000 will go down in history as the first group of climbers to conquer Everest in the new millennium.

My colleagues, join with me in this celebration. Canada is on top of the world.

[The Late Keizo Obuchi, May 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, as chair of the Canada-Japan Interparliamentary Group I would like to express on behalf of the members of the interparliamentary group our deepest condolences with the sad news of the death of former Japanese Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi.

Mr. Obuchi was a strong supporter of Canada-Japan relations. His counsel and his advice were most appreciated. In November 1999 a delegation of Canadian parliamentarians had the great honour of meeting with Mr. Obuchi in his private residence in the context of the 10th bilateral consultations with their counterparts in the Diet. Members were struck by his warmth, friendship and genuine interest in Canada. They sensed that they were among a true friend.

We offer our deepest condolences to Mr. Obuchi's family and to the Japanese people. We will miss him.

[Employment Insurance, May 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will not take issue with you at this point, but I would indicate that, in fairness, the government needs to respond and the government will respond to both the motion and to the amendment that was proposed.

I point out to all members of the House that we all share concerns with regard to seasonal workers. The original motion called upon the government to restore EI benefits to seasonal workers. I reject the premise that EI benefits have been taken away from these workers. I would support, however, the amendment proposed by the member for Miramichi. His proposed amendment would ask us to take immediate action to review EI benefits so that workers with seasonal jobs could continue contributing to the economy and building a better quality of life. I think this is important for everyone.

Canadians and seasonal work remain an important factor in government social and economic planning. An estimated 327,000 Canadians worked in seasonal jobs in 1997, about 3% of all paid workers. In Atlantic Canada the numbers were obviously higher than the national average.

Furthermore, within certain industries themselves there is greater seasonality in Atlantic Canada than elsewhere in the country. In other words, employment fluctuates more with the seasons.

We must recognize that seasonal industries are a large factor in the Canadian economy and indeed we must recognize the increased importance to the Atlantic region in general. Obviously the treatment of seasonal workers on employment insurance is an important concern to the government and will be treated as such. However, it seems that whenever EI comes up for discussion in the House we must return to the basics.

Why was the EI system introduced in 1996? We had to make the system fairer. There had to be greater incentives to work. We wanted to increase assistance for low income families with children and we wanted to ensure the future viability of the program. Overall, we wanted a balance in the system, redirecting resources to help unemployed Canadians get back to work.

The EI program introduced in 1996 included measures to achieve these ends, but it was never designed, nor should it have been, to be the sole solution, the sole guarantee of well-being for Canadians in any region.

Concern for unemployed workers has always been a priority of the government. We must ensure that EI benefits continue to provide income while unemployed individuals look for a new job. In addition, EI provides active re-employment measures like career counselling, self-employment and skills development to help improve the employability of individuals. Indeed, active re-employment measures are now helping people to return to the labour market.

While a strong economy was the result of the creation of 383,000 full time jobs last year, we have nevertheless maintained our efforts to help those workers, regions and industries which face special challenges.

We introduced EI to help contribute to the adjustment in the fishery. We created small weeks adjustment projects at a cost of $225 million to help workers, many of whom are seasonal workers, collect higher benefits and maintain a hold on the job market.

We have established a working group with the provinces and territories to examine ways to address the specific needs of seasonal workers, including options for pilot projects to create employment opportunities in the off season. We have invested $30 million over two years to launch pilot projects to help workers maintain a strong attachment to the workforce.

The minister has recognized this and she has committed her regional officials to work closely with these workers to better appreciate local needs and explore how we can better help communities help themselves.

The redesigned EI plan introduced the hours based system rather than the previous system based on weeks worked. The hours based system is much fairer in that every hour of work counts toward eligibility of benefits. Remember, seasonal workers tend to work a large number of hours in a given week, so the EI system benefits them particularly.

Evidence is building that many seasonal workers are in fact finding the extra work needed to qualify for longer benefits. Keep in mind as well that we are attentive to working families with low incomes. Seasonal workers in this situation receive higher benefits with the family supplement. If they receive the family supplement, they are exempt from the intensity rule.

Also, many seasonal workers are receiving increased benefits because of participation in small weeks projects.

But the point we should be bearing in mind during debate on this motion is that the effects of various changes introduced in the EI package can only be measured as they are played out over time.

The EI program and its efforts are being monitored continuously, and there is a requirement for annual assessment reports for the five years following its introduction. The third report has just been released and it provides a more up to date assessment of how the program is working.

The EI reforms cannot be looked at in isolation from what has been happening in the Canadian economy and the labour market. Unemployment rates have declined dramatically across the country and unemployment is at its lowest level in decades. Job growth was particularly strong for women and youth.

It is not immediately apparent what this has meant for seasonal workers, since EI data seldom differentiates between seasonal and non-seasonal workers. However, there is a great overlap of seasonal workers and frequent EI users. Data for these groups are often very similar.

In 1998-99 frequent claimants received about 43% of all regular and fishing benefits, up from 41% in the previous year. Benefit payments to these claimants were $3.4 billion, virtually unchanged from the previous year. At the same time, benefits paid to unemployed workers in most seasonal industries increased substantially with the highest increases taking place in fishing and trapping which was up 70% and mining, oil and gas which was up 52%. While the percentages of benefits received by frequent claimants increased, the number of regular and fishing claims made by frequent claimants declined 5.7% to 604,000 due in part to a general decline in claims overall.

I will sum up by saying I believe the third annual monitoring and assessment report demonstrates that the EI regime does indeed provide better coverage for seasonal workers compared to the system it replaced. Therefore the amendment moved by the hon. member for Miramichi is more in keeping with what is happening with regard to the EI regime. We should indeed be monitoring EI benefits not only for seasonal workers but for all workers. This is what we are doing. With respect to the proposed subamendment that the review include cross-country hearings, while the intentions may be honourable, the net result would only add to the cost of the existing process. The government certainly will support the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me a bit of leeway with regard to the time.