Judy Wasylycia-Leis

[Petitions, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and honoured to be able to present a petition that has been signed by thousands of Canadians.

This is a very timely petition. It gives the government some critical advice at an important juncture especially facing the initiatives we have heard this past couple of weeks from Ralph Klein in Alberta.

The petitioners call on the federal government to preserve and enforce the Canada Health Act, the foundation of medicare in every province and region of Canada, and maintain the five principles of medicare: universality, accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness and non-profit administration.

They call on the government to guarantee national standards of quality, publicly-funded health care for every Canadian citizen as a right.

[Request For Emergency Debate, November 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 52(2) to seek leave to propose an emergency debate on Alberta Premier Ralph Klein's recently declared intentions to challenge the principles of medicare and the delivery of health care under the Canada Health Act.

On Tuesday, November 16, Premier Ralph Klein went on the airwaves and announced his intentions to pursue contracting out to private for profit forces of in patient hospital services.

Although Alberta has a record of privatization in many areas, this announcement on November 16 constituted a fundamental shift, a profound change, a radical departure from Canada's public health system and the principles of the Canada Health Act.

The action announced last week by Premier Klein is a threat to the fundamental public nature of Canada's health system.

It is the responsibility of the federal government under the Canada Health Act to address this threat and to ensure that the letter and spirit of the law are maintained.

In presenting my case today for an emergency debate I will state three points. The first has to do with the urgency surrounding this issue. I would simply suggest that the sentiments of Canadians and the comments by the architects of the Canada Health Act suggest to us that there may be a fundamental violation of the Canada Health Act. We need parliament to take prompt action.

Second, Canadians are counting on parliament to speak to this fundamental issue of national identity, a fundamental defining feature of our Canadian identity. Canadians are looking to us to address this very serious issue.

My third point has to do with the fact that in the views of many, Alberta's position actually may be incompatible with the Canada Health Act.

There is a real need to act immediately, especially given the fact that we have chapter 11 of NAFTA and the upcoming negotiations at Seattle around the WTO. At any time any part of our health care system in any part of the country is opened up for involvement by a private sector force, particularly an American private sector force, our entire Canadian system is opened up to that possibility. It is a very dangerous precedent setting move which must be addressed on a timely basis.

Members of parliament need the opportunity to speak out on behalf of their constituents and Canadians everywhere in the face of this threat to the principles of medicare. This is an area around which the government has administrative responsibility. I am talking about an act which was passed in the House in 1984 and clearly outlined the principles of medicare, of universality, of accessibility, of comprehensiveness, of portability and of non-profit administration.

It is also related to the fact that the government may be responsible for some of the threats to medicare and the fact that Alberta moved in the first place. I refer simply to the accord signed by the government in 1996 with Alberta that opened up the door to private health care. I also refer to the very significant reduction in transfer payments by the government to all provincial health care systems.

I think we have a number of important points to make. I think nothing short of an emergency debate is in order today.

[Health, November 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, how can the minister pretend to be the defender of medicare when it is his government that is the architect of its destruction? This is the government that drastically cut transfer payments. This is the government that signed a deal with the Alberta government in 1996 to open up the doors for private health care delivery.

If the minister is really serious, he would act today by terminating that arrangement with Alberta. He would promise, with the help of his colleague the Minister of Finance, to increase transfer payments. He would take tough decisive action today. Will he do that, yes or no?

[Health, November 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the health minister has had ample time to review the Klein proposal which is clearly incompatible with the intent of the Canada Health Act. In fact, it appears that the health minister was given a heads up almost four weeks ago by the Alberta government.

The minister also knows, because he has said so himself, that the best way to ward off the threat of private for profit health care is to ensure that we have the highest quality public health care system. There is clearly a need for that kind of decisive action and urgent attention.

My question again for the minister is what will he do to ward off the destructive Alberta initiative and when will he do it?

[Regulatory Budget, November 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in the debate on M-207.

At the outset, I want to acknowledge the work of the member for Kings—Hants in bringing the motion before the House and to thank him for the work that he has done on a very important matter. Contrary to my colleagues in the Reform Party, I do see a purpose and a point to the debate from the point of view of accountability and open, transparent government.

It should not be a surprise for us to hear Reform members talk in such strong terms against the motion because what this party is really interested in is no government. The least government is the best government from the point of view of Reform members. Anything that comes in the way of that is certainly a negative from their perspective.

I certainly support the spirit of the motion before us. What the member for Kings—Hants is trying to do is to acknowledge the fact that today we have a government by stealth, a government that has basically found a secretive, underhanded way of advancing public policy without the full benefit of parliamentary debate and public scrutiny. I certainly acknowledge the root cause of the motion and appreciate his attempts to address that.

We support the spirit of the motion. We also support that aspect of the motion that deals with the principle of ensuring financial impact assessments on regulations. I support that proposition because it does give us one way to ensure scrutiny and accountability here in this place of elected representatives.

We do, however, have some problems with the member's suggestion for a regulatory budget. We are concerned about that particular aspect of the motion because we know those words have become a flag waving idea by extreme right-wing elements in the United States. If we cut through all the rhetoric of the Reform Party, we will find that it supports that concept as well because it allows it to advance the agenda of reducing government and the whole role and responsibility of government for ensuring a society that is more equitable and based on fairness and justice.

We know that the idea of a regulatory budget has been advanced by some pretty extreme characters in the United States. We think back to Pat Buchanan who, in the 1960s, was advocating such an idea and did so in very open terms. He felt that this kind of idea would create the optimal situation for reducing the role of government. His objective would in fact be zero regulations and a zero budget situation. We are very leery of giving any credence to this kind of idea. We will speak consistently against that approach.

Coming back to what I think is the spirit of the motion before us and the real intentions of the member for Kings—Hants is accountability with respect to regulations. It ensures that we are able to measure the effectiveness of regulations and hold the government accountable for any endeavours or initiatives that exceed its obligations under existing laws and statutes.

There are many examples where the government has advanced its own agenda and ideas in ways that appear quite contrary to the legislation that has been approved without it being held accountable to parliament. We certainly think that the financial impact assessments of regulations would allow for all of us to have a more open public debate and better scrutiny of public policy. Having financial impact assessments on regulations would be an important tool for all of us.

The member for Kings—Hants mentioned that it will not always be possible to make decisions strictly in terms of a cost benefit analysis. There will be times, if we have all the facts before us, where we will recognize that the costs of enforcing and implementing regulations may far outweigh the cost to our budget and the mechanisms required to enforce those regulations.

We, in the House, would appreciate opportunities to assess the compliance costs of environmental regulations. We on this side of the House would like to see a way to assess the GST compliance costs on small business. We would like to find a way to assess the financial impact of regulations pursued by the government when it comes to patent medicine. We would like to fully understand how a government can proceed with decisions made behind closed doors without the benefit of public scrutiny. We would like to understand how it justifies those decisions in terms of the entire health care system and the Canadian taxpayer as a whole.

I think specifically of the issue we have dealt with in the last few months with respect to the Minister of Industry. In the dead of this summer, he brought forward regulations without warning, without any kind of heads up to the generic drug industry, about the government's plans to make further changes to the notice of compliance regulations which make it harder for generic drug companies to have a foothold in the country and get their products to market. At that time, we raised concerns about the whole process.

I will quote from a letter I wrote to the Minister of Industry on September 9:

Through recently announced amendments, your government has surreptitiously introduced changes that will certainly add to the drug costs faced by Canadians. These changes further entrench the virtual monopoly guaranteed to the international pharmaceutical cartel through the ill-advised Canada Patent Act at the expense of the generic drug industry and the Canadian health system. I am particularly concerned about the arbitrary and undemocratic way in which you have chosen to proceed with these latest amendments to the Patented Medicines Regulations.

I go on to call for the minister to slow down the process to allow for all players in the field to scrutinize the proposed regulations and to bring them to parliament to be accountable to this body of elected representatives in terms of cost benefit analysis, in terms of consistency with existing legislation and in terms of consistency with the public's interest in ensuring a more cost effective system where people have access to drugs when they need them.

The government chose to ignore these concerns. It chose to ignore the strong positions presented to it from the Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association. I can cite reams and reams of documents where that organization appealed to the government to slow the process down, hear its input and to truly look at the financial impact for all Canadians and our entire health care system if this was allowed to go through.

The Minister of Industry and the entire cabinet ignored those concerns. They proceeded to ratify those regulations at the beginning of October. It is now a done deal. That is a perfect example of government by stealth and a government that advances its agenda which is tied to the big pharmaceutical corporations and other big industry interests in order to pursue its objectives. That is precisely what needs to be addressed.

This motion provides us with a way to debate and discuss these concerns. In part it goes a long way toward addressing a very serious situation.

Again, I would like to congratulate and thank the member for Kings—Hants for his motion. We support the spirit of it. We support that part of it which deals with financial impact assessments on regulations. We regret that we cannot support the regulatory budget approach. However, given the sentiments in the House for more government accountability to parliament, I believe that this would provide the basis for future motions and legislative work that we can pursue as members in the House of Commons.

[Health Care, November 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Premiers Klein and Harris, backed up by the Reform Party, want this country to retreat to the old, inefficient U.S. style of health care, back to the dark ages where they checked the purse before they checked the pulse.

The government has to be concerned about these developments and must know it has to take immediate action. It has to hold Alberta accountable for violating the principles of the Canada Health Act. It has to acknowledge that the only way to go forward, not backward, is to pursue innovation and improvements within the public health care system.

Can the government do that? Can it make that commitment today?

[Criminal Code, November 18th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to address a matter that I raised in this House on October 18.

At that time I raised a question and brought a matter to the attention of the Minister of Health pertaining to the very serious and broad issue around food safety.

I specifically asked the government about its intentions with respect to Bill C-80, which was legislation tabled in parliament last spring but not dealt with before the summer recess.

In the interim a most unusual development occurred. The extraordinary public display of concern by 200 staff people in the Department of Health took place. Two hundred scientists in the health protection branch, knowledgeable about the area of food safety and food research, spoke up publicly. That is unheard of. For that large a group of employees within the government to go public with their concerns suggests to me and to members of my party that there is a very deep rooted serious problem within the Department of Health that has not been addressed and continues to fester and cause concerns for all Canadians.

Those scientists went public on September 30 of this year. They called upon the government to reverse its decision with respect Bill C-80 and with respect to the whole erosion of the food safety approach of the government. They were very clear about the problems associated with Bill C-80 and about a number of other developments that have raised serious concerns among Canadians regarding the quality and safety of our food.

Specifically they talked about aspects of the bill that need to be addressed by the government. For example, fundamental to their concerns is a matter pertaining to a conflict of interest in the inspection and surveillance of our food safety system.

The government has shifted responsibility from Health Canada to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency which is a step removed from direct accountability to parliament and involves a serious potential conflict of interest, being an agency that is responsible both for the promotion and marketing of food as well as for the inspection and safety of our food supply. They believe Bill C-80 will take us a step further in that direction.

They also raised concerns about the failure of the government, which is shown in Bill C-80 as it was tabled last spring, around ensuring that genetically engineered foods are safe. They suggest that the legislation will open the floodgates and allow for biotechnology to take place at a very rapid pace in the country without any kind of in-depth research being done to determine the long term impact on human health, on production patterns and on the environment.

They also believe that the bill will neutralize the Minister of Health and prevent him from carrying out his legislated statutory obligations under the Food and Drugs Act.

They have many other concerns, all of which I am sure the government is fully aware of. However, I want to use this opportunity today to ask: Given these concerns, will the government not just simply put Bill C-80 on hold but actually take it right off the agenda and look at restoring the teeth—

[Health, November 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health has now had an opportunity to study Ralph Klein's medicare destroying missile.

Yesterday we heard warm and fuzzies. Today Canadians want action. Yesterday we informed the government that it could immediately invoke section 6 of the social union, which says that dispute avoidance and resolutions will apply to interpretations of Canada Health Act principles.

Surely that is what we are talking about today. Will the health minister take that step today?

[Division No. 53, November 17th, 1999]

As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, public life, especially work as a member of parliament, has its exhilarating and rewarding moments occasionally, but most of the time there is a real sense of frustration, especially when we are unable to mobilize public resources in the interests of the public good.

Tonight is one of those occasions as I revisit the issue of youth smoking. As we deal with this issue, I am certainly faced with one of those moments of very deep frustration and anger.

Since my question on October 25 on tobacco taxation, the Liberal government has blown another opportunity to strike a significant blow against youth smoking and as a result the health and lives of more Canadians will be sacrificed.

The government cut taxes on tobacco in 1994 in response to the smuggling crisis. At the same time, it promised to launch a major campaign against youth smoking. More young people are smoking today, and on top of it all, tobacco profits continue to rise.

Statistically we know that the trend to non-smoking dropped off immediately in provinces where taxes were cut in 1994. The differential over the last eight years is 24% where there were no cuts and 8% where there were cuts. In young adults, smoking rates have rebounded to pre-1989 levels.

It is bewildering as I try to conceive of what it will take or what we can do or say tonight to prompt the government and the health minister to take action.

We have heard from the scientific community that youth smoking carries the severest of all tobacco's health consequences and that youth smoking sets up the most difficult problems to overcome. We know internationally that there are health organizations and also, of course, the World Bank that endorses high tobacco taxes as a weapon against youth smoking.

We know that stable high prices in neighbouring states mean a significant tax hike here will not trigger renewed smuggling. We also have Canada's leading health groups on tobacco unanimously calling for a significant $10 federal-provincial increase in tobacco taxes.

We should all commend the work of those groups: the Canadian Cancer Society, the Non-Smokers' Rights Association, the Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada and the Quebec Coalition for Tobacco control.

What does the government, which claims to be committed to ending youth smoking, do? It raises taxes 60 cents. There is no logical reason and no obstacle standing in the government's way from introducing significant enough tax increases to make a difference, significant enough to discourage young Canadians from needlessly endangering their health. Instead, what does the government do? It chooses to talk the talk but do nothing.

In closing, let me remind members opposite and the government that it is not only tobacco taxes that we are talking about. We are talking about the government's cave-in on tobacco sponsorship legislation. We are talking about the government's obstacles to and blockage of Bill S-13. It promised to bring it back in some form, but it is not here. It is buried somewhere in some Liberal caucus committee.

We are talking about the government's refusal to call the tobacco companies to task for the kind of health care costs that we are incurring as a society because of tobacco advertising and because they are pushing tobacco products on young people. We are talking about the government's commitment to spend $100 million on tobacco cessation and smoking prevention and barely a fraction of that has been spent today.

Today I call on the minister once more to take some action. I say to the government that it is not too late. Act now for the sake of our young people and for the health of our nation.

[Health, November 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, whenever the minister answers a question on health care I am always tempted to ask, is that all there is? There is lots of talk but no action.

Canadians are depending upon the government to protect public health care. The health minister has options. If he is really serious about protecting health care he could and he should use the process set out by the social union agreement to challenge that kind of approach. He can do that now. Will he do it? Will he use the social union agreement to fight for public health care?