Judy Wasylycia-Leis

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, February 24th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-13, in Clause 20, be amended by adding after line 7 on page 11 the following:

“(5) The members of the Advisory Boards shall not, directly or indirectly, as owner, shareholder, director, officer, partner or otherwise, have any pecuniary or proprietary interest in any business which operates in the pharmaceutical or medical devices industries.”

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-13, in Clause 20, be amended by adding after line 7 on page 11 the following:

“(5) The Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to the members of the Advisory Boards. For the purposes of the Code, “Public Office Holder” includes a member of an Advisory Board.”

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-13, in Clause 20, be amended by adding after line 7 on page 11 the following:

“20.1 (1) Within three months after the coming into force of this Act, the Governing Council shall make a by-law establishing a code of ethics for the members of the Advisory Boards.

(2) The by-law referred to in subsection (1) shall apply to the members of the Advisory Boards thirty days after it is made.”

[Health Care, February 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the clouds over Canada's treasured health care system are getting darker.

Yesterday the Prime Minister tried to pretend that Liberal cuts to transfers have been fully restored. To quote from the Prime Minister himself, his words have no relation to reality. The truth is that the Liberal government still has not put back over $4 billion it took out of health care in 1995.

The result: two-tier Americanized health care continues to get a foothold in this country. Just look at Alberta where the truth squads are out using public funds to explain why public health care should be dismantled, and still the federal government stays silent.

As Alberta has said “silence means acceptance”. Canadians are saying to the government “Break the silence, find some backbone, contain the privatization virus before it contaminates health care across the country”.

With days to go before the federal budget, the government must act and must act now. It has one choice and perhaps only one chance: to put back all the money it took from health care in 1995. Take back Canada's public health care system.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, February 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity, albeit at the very last moment given the motion of closure on the part of the government, to participate in the discussion on Bill C-23.

It is interesting that in the time I have been listening to the debate there has been a lot of discussion about sex and marriage. It seems to me that is not really the main essence of the bill we have before us today. I am probably speaking on behalf of most colleagues in the House here today when I say that we are probably the last people in Canada who should be talking with any kind of authority about sex and marriage.

Goodness knows, we are in Ottawa all week and our partners are back in the riding. We get home after a crazy week and are pursued by a 101 constituents. Some of us have kids who want to see us. Who has time for sex?

The point of my introduction is to simply draw us back to the purpose of the bill. It is not about sex and marriage. The bill deals with a very fundamental question: the pursuit of full equality for all people in our society today regardless of sexual orientation.

Let us not be detracted by some of the comments made by the Reform Party and some of the misgivings of the Liberal backbenchers about what is at hand here.

I am pleased to join my colleagues in the New Democratic Party in supporting Bill C-23. I add my congratulations to the Liberal government for finally bringing in legislation that was long overdue and will meet our obligations as a country.

I pay a special tribute to the member for Burnaby—Douglas who has probably done more than anyone in the history of the country to pursue the goal of full equality for gay and lesbian people and to ensure that the values of Canadians around full equality, justice and fairness were fully enshrined in the laws of this land. There are many people to whom I could pay tribute, but I wanted to single out the unswerving and dedicated work of the member for Burnaby—Douglas.

The bill is about equality, justice and fairness. It is about meeting our obligations. It is a long overdue measure to make operational the principle of equality for all people regardless of sexual orientation as articulated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Act, in numerous provincial statutes, in various court decisions and particularly by the Supreme Court of Canada in the spring of 1999, the highest court in the land, which ruled on this very issue.

As we said earlier today, this is a housekeeping bill. It brings us up to date with the laws of the land. It puts into practice the values of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. The legislation represents a basic democratic right of Canadians. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It takes us a step closer to the goal of full equality for all gay and lesbian people.

In reference to some of the comments I heard today from Reform members, the bill captures the true meaning of family, not as some artificial construct based on some idyllic view of the past that never was, based on some norms of a previous society, based on various interpretations in the Bible or based on cultural conditioning that has permeated every aspect of our society today, but a definition of family that keeps pace with society, that captures the very fundamental issues that we are dealing with: loving relationships, safe and nurturing environments and a commitment to ensure the well-being of all members of the family unit.

I was taken aback by the comments of the Reform Party today. Many times when we have had these debates the Reform members have shown their feelings on this issue in a rather veiled attempt, focusing on the intricacies of a bill rather than exposing their feelings on sexual orientation. What we have heard today from the Reform Party and some Liberal backbenchers is just how far we must go as a society in recognizing equality of all people regardless of sexual orientation.

I could not help but go back to some of the writings of the Vanier Institute of the Family. It has written so many articles and has spoken so well about the family. I want to put on record a quotation from an article by Suanne Kelman from the winter 1999 edition of Transition . She said, “I think what we can learn from the past is that we should ignore the hysteria many critics bring to the discussion of family life today. We are not going to find perfect answers for every family but that fact should not stop us from grappling with the realities facing us. If we can recognize the impossibility of returning to a past we never had, we can get going, cheerfully, intelligently and compassionately on improving the future”.

That is what we are doing today. We are clearly moving forward intelligently and compassionately on a notion of family that is rooted in the fundamentals of companionship and friendship, love and nurturing, caring and concern. That is the essence of this bill. That is why it is important we move forward and recognize the need to ensure that those values are enshrined in every law of the land.

Today it is clear to me more than ever that there are those who fundamentally oppose the notion of recognizing people who are homosexual. I appreciate there are differences that we still have to address. I hope that the Reform Party does not try to take us back to an age when people are not recognized for their individual talents and contributions which they can make to our society today.

The debate we are having today in many ways reminds me of the debate we had in the spring of 1998. The Reform Party brought in its motion pertaining to the Rosenberg decision in the Ontario court and presented us with what we all considered to be a most regrettable situation. It was clearly seen to be a thinly veiled attempt to promote and endorse discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. That is being repeated today and I am very worried about it.

I would hope that on entering this millennium we would be looking at some very fundamental values that have to be upheld and supported in every law over which we have authority and every practice and program that we are responsible for. I hope we can move forward with a clear understanding of what this bill is all about and why it is so important for the fabric of Canadian society.

I will conclude my remarks by quoting from an article written by Helen Fallding which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press on February 16. In her article, “A Valentine for the Minister”, Helen congratulated the government for bringing forward this legislation and recognizing the reality in terms of this legislation.

I will not quote the article directly because that would mean mentioning the minister's name. Helen said that if the Minister of Justice “manages to sneak the new bill passed Liberal backbenchers and Reform Party opponents, Lisa”—her partner—“and I will receive the same treatment from federal government departments as common law couples”. She went on to say, “Each year when I make my RRSP contribution, I pray that the federal government will stop its discriminatory practices before one of us dies. If I died tomorrow, Lisa would have to pay taxes on my RRSP savings, instead of having them roll over into her account as they do for heterosexual widows”. She concluded by saying that this “is not really about money for me. It is about finally getting to feel like a Canadian citizen. It is about having my country acknowledge the mutual support and commitment partners like Lisa and I offer each other. Ultimately it is about love”.

I hope we will all support this bill and get on with the important work ahead of us.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, February 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Sarnia—Lambton for his speech on this very important piece of legislation and raise a couple of points he referenced in it.

The first concerns the fact that some individuals would like to portray this debate, this issue, this bill, as trend setting, groundbreaking and innovative. I wonder if it makes more sense to portray the legislation in terms of housekeeping and necessary work on our part to bring federal statutes in line with the values of Canadians and with numerous judicial and legislative rulings in the country to date.

The second point is the fact that the member referenced differences of opinion on the whole issue of extending the benefits to same sex couples that exist now to opposite sex couples. He referenced that there were differences that should be respected. I agree with that. However, I wonder if he shares our concern that positions have been stated in the House which are thinly veiled attempts to promote and endorse discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. I wonder if we are really talking about acknowledging the rights of every person in the country to participate as equal citizens and about ensuring we acknowledge loving and committed relationships whether they are same sex or opposite sex.

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, February 16th, 2000]

For the financial year 1999-2000, how much money has the government ( a ) spent before September 1, 1999, and ( b ) allocated for the reduction of smoking, in each of the following activity areas: (i) anti-smoking programs aimed at youth and young Canadians, (ii) research into tobacco use and its consequences, (iii) enforcement of federal laws on tobacco use, (iv) enforcement of laws against cigarette smuggling, (v) measurement of the tobacco use by Canadians, (vi) development of regulations under the new Tobacco Act, (vii) costs associated with the tobacco industry challenge of the Tobacco Act, (viii) cessation programs or other support for Canadians addicted to cigarettes, and (ix) grants and/or contributions to health and community organizations?

Return tabled.

[Academy Award Nominations, February 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is Academy Award nomination time again. There are some Oscar nominees who have been overlooked by the academy, so we offer them to you today.

Best actor: The Prime Minister. There is no doubt about it. For seven years he has been cutting health care and acting like he is not.

Best makeup: The Canadian alliance or the Reform Party, or whatever they are calling it. Every Canadian knows it is the same old Reform underneath, no matter how many times they change their name.

Best foreign language film: This would be the Reform Party too. Canadians consistently say their priority is health care, but Reform thinks it is tax cuts for the rich, which is foreign to anyone who is staying in a hospital.

Best performance in a musical: The health minister for his question period renditions of the same old tune “I'm saving medicare”.

Best supporting actor: The finance minister for his portrayal of Scrooge in the Liberal government's budget series.

Finally, best lead in a horror feature: Ralph Klein for “Destroying Medicare III—The Privatization Bill”.

[Health, February 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, another scandal the government must come to grips with is its failure to flow any money to victims of hepatitis C as promised by the Minister of Health 23 months ago. To date, no money has flowed.

Today lawyers are in court demanding increases in fees to the tune of a 4.29 multiplier, representing about $55 million in fees for lawyers.

My question is for the Minister of Health who is responsible for the terms of the compensation settlement. Can he not bring closure to this issue, put an end to this legal wrangling and ensure that every penny of the $1.2 billion goes to victims and not lawyers?

[Canada Elections Act, February 14th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am also pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-2 and in particular the amendments in Group No. 2 specifically referring to some of the major provisions of the bill.

At the outset let me pick up where the Liberal member left off. As the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River introduced his comments he asked why we on the opposition benches were debating the bill, was it not in effect a fairly perfect bill before the House, and what was all the fuss about. In fact he said: “If it isn't broke, don't fix it”, implying that the bill was a pretty good collection of ideas which would make a difference in terms of elections law in the country today.

My question to that member and to all other members of the Liberal government involves a couple of things. How do they know it is not broken? Does the bill represent an indepth systemic look at the situation in Canada today when it comes to elections law and elections provisions? Why would they wait until it was broken before they fixed it? Why would they not start looking into the future to see whether there are obstacles, problems or concerns that need to be addressed now?

I share a bit of Reform's concern with the fact that we had an opportunity to address some very serious problems in our Canadian political system. We had an opportunity to take a hard look at elections law and to make some pretty fundamental and significant changes. I share the concern of Reform and others when it is said that we have missed that opportunity.

I certainly believe we have missed an opportunity in reassessing how effective our elections act has been and where we need to go in the future to achieve what I think is the raison d'être, the underpinning, the root purpose of all of this work to create the rules and regulations that would allow everyone to participate. Our job and the role of government is to ensure a level playing field. Our elections act and other complementary pieces of legislation must work to ensure that everybody has the opportunity, regardless of economic status, regardless of region and regardless of sex, to participate in Canadian politics today.

We had an opportunity to do something meaningful and to look at a piece of legislation that has not been changed substantially since 1970. Over that period of time a lot has changed. We have learned a lot more. We are faced with many new problems as Canadians. We had a golden opportunity to make some important changes to our political system, beginning with ensuring that the laws determining elections financing and participation were up to date, relevant and meaningful.

That is where I have any kind of similarity to the Reform Party. We part company right after the notion that we had a great opportunity which has been missed. We all agree that leadership has again been lacking from the federal government. The government has again been fixated on tinkering with the system, on making small changes, on maintaining the status quo, and then on getting it through the House as fast as possible.

There is no question that we all share concerns about the way the government at every turn, with every bill, has tried to push through legislation as quickly as possible, just at the time when we need to be getting into indepth debate involving more Canadians and having really important dialogue across the country.

I part company with Reform, a party that wants to take us in the direction of American style politics. Its position on the bill and on the amendments is very much the same as its position on health care: American style health care, American style politics. Reformers are focusing on the gag law or the gag order, as they would put it, as opposed to seeing it from the point of view of the positive impact of restrictions on third party advertising for all Canadians and as a mechanism for ensuring participation by everyone in our political system today.

We in this party believe that the bill does not go far enough because it does not clearly set out a definite framework in terms of ensuring equal participation by Canadians right across Canada. We think this was an opportunity for the government to ask what are the barriers and obstacles to Canadians participating. Are the limits on election expenses significant enough? Are the reporting mechanisms in terms of donations meaningful enough? Do we have a fair enough system? Is it a level playing field? Are we able to ensure that every group and individual feels they can participate if they are so inclined?

Reformers, on the other hand, would like to take us further in the other direction. From what I have heard in this debate and being at committee at one occasion, they would like to lift the rules and have a total free-for-all, an open door, a come as you go kind of approach to politics in Canada today. Our position is that we need rules, regulations, limits and a way to ensure that every Canadian has a right to participate.

We can take a look around us at the makeup of the House. Is that not enough to tell us we have a long way to go with our Elections Act to ensure that kind of participation? Where is the 50% participation by women we thought we would see by the year 2000?

The House may remember the history accounts of when Agnes MacPhail was first elected to the House in 1921. She had fought long and hard for women to be involved in political life and said “I can almost hear them coming”. She thought at that point in 1921 that a breakthrough had been made, that barriers had at least in large measure been eliminated and that women would enter politics in as equal numbers as men.

As we can see there was no stampede. What are we at today? Is it overall 20% participation by women in the House today? In my party we have at least raised that number up to 40%, but that took hard work and deliberate affirmative action measures. That is the kind of provision, the kind of effort and the kind of action we need to see by the government as a whole when it comes to the Elections Act.

Where is the emphasis in the bill to address the kind of responsibilities that women face in society today and the barriers that prevent them from participating equally in our political arenas? Have we looked at reasonable limits on expenses in a serious way in terms of the participation of women? Have we looked at the extra cost it takes for women to get into politics because they are juggling their work, their family, their household and community responsibilities? Have we addressed all the financial, attitudinal and structural barriers?

Here was an opportunity. We could have done it. We could have made a difference. Goodness knows we need to. We are a long way from the goal of equal representation in the House. We are a long way in the Chamber from representing the whole diversity of society today. If anything, this should be a lesson and a signal to all of us that the bill is incomplete. It takes some important steps. It addresses the need for restrictions on third party advertising. We are happy with that. It looks at a 48 hour blackout of polling. It looks at some restrictions in terms of financing, but it could have done a lot more.

My colleague from Kamloops mentioned in particular one issue which we are dealing with right now, the disclosure of all donors who register as numbered companies. Why do we not know who these donors are? Why do we not try to find out? Why do we not make sure we have a level playing field? I think that would be in the best interest of Canadian society today.

[Health, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Alberta Premier Ralph Klein has his foot to the floor in his drive toward two tier health care. We are only weeks away from the introduction of for profit hospital care in Canada and the Liberal government is still in disarray, wringing its hands, paralyzed in the glare of Klein's headlights.

Canadians do not want two tier health care and across the country are mobilizing to fight it. Only the Liberals seem powerless to act. They should snap out of it and wake up.

The government has the power to stop the Klein monster it created with its transfer cuts and lack of leadership. It can use the surplus budget and restore the transfer payments fully. The government can immediately act to outlaw private hospitals. It can act now, not next month, not next year, to bring in national home care and national pharmacare.

The big question is do the Liberals have the political will to act in time or will our valued public health system become roadkill on the drive to private profits?

[Health Care, February 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's system of public health care is facing serious pressures which threaten its very survival. Federal cuts to transfer payments have put medicare on a precipice. They have made public health plans vulnerable. They have opened the door to privatization. They have fueled the fire of two tier advocates, with Ralph Klein in the lead. This is the fight of our lives.

Today the Canadian Health Coalition with Tommy Douglas' daughter, Shirley, who is with us today, launched its campaign to stop Klein's privatization plans, to restore health care transfers in the upcoming budget and to strengthen medicare now. They represent all Canadians. They want the government to act now. They expect the government to take immediate action to stop two tier health care.

We know the threats are real. We also know we have a great opportunity to develop the same kind of gutsy solutions that Tommy Douglas and the Saskatchewan CCF launched in the 1960s.