Judy Wasylycia-Leis

[Petitions, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to present yet another petition from more Canadians concerned about our health care system.

The petitioners come from all parts of the country and want to register with the government their concern about the impact of government policies and its failure to reinvest significantly in this field and what it has meant for themselves and their families.

They point out to the government that its policies have resulted in families facing huge waiting lists, crowded emergency rooms, badly overworked health care workers, nurse shortages, lack of access to diagnostic tests and services, two tier American style health care, and other threats to the integrity of Canada's health care system.

They call upon the government to reinvest in the health care field, to guarantee stable funding for health care and to ensure the enforcement of the five principles of the Canada Health Act.

[Health, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are becoming increasingly concerned about their food safety and increasingly frustrated with a government that appears more concerned with pleasing corporations than with protecting their health.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has proven itself incapable of taking decisive action to protect our health. When imported raspberries poisoned hundreds of Canadians last year, it refused to step in to ban the imports because of liability concerns. When salmonella tainted alfalfa sprouts poisoned nearly 200 people, the CFIA backed away from reporting the industry responsible.

The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada that represents the scientists and food inspectors charged with safeguarding our food supply has said the agency has totalled abandoned its mandate. It has cut hundreds of field inspector jobs and stopped conducting annual safety audits of meat establishments.

Today a scientist said the government uses wrong procedures when it comes to assessing the environmental and food safety risks posed by genetically engineered foods. Today scientists said that when it comes to soy based infant formula Health Canada chooses to ignore the scientific evidence.

[Petitions, May 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to present a petition signed by hundreds of Canadians from across the country on the critical issue of health care facing all citizens of Canada.

The petitioners call upon the government to recognize that the Canada Health Act must reign supreme, that the principles of that act must be seen as paramount and that the government must do everything in its power to guarantee national standards of quality, publicly funded health care for every Canadian citizen as a right.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, let me respond to the hon. member's initial comment about inconsistencies in the NDP and the fact that on some occasions there seems to be some unity on the opposition benches.

The hon. member should realize that when that unity happens, when we speak with one voice, it is always when the government presents us with the most arbitrary, underhanded, undemocratic process imaginable. That is what unites us, because we are all here banding for a parliament that is in touch with the wishes of Canadians and operates on a democratic basis.

There is nothing inconsistent about the NDP's position. We have said from day one that we must always look for co-operative solutions to any problem before us. On the issue of pension surplus we have always said there was a process in place. It was working. It could have been carried to its logical conclusion. The government did not have to be so precipitous, bring in Bill C-78 and just take that $30 billion to use according to its own agenda.

We have always stood in this place and have spoken out against abuse of power. That is what we are doing today. It happens that other members on the opposition benches share that concern because it is so fundamental to democracy. We have always been there to participate every step of the way.

The government has brought in closure after four hours of debate on a major piece of legislation which takes $30 billion out of pension funds to be used for its own agenda. It does not allow for any kind of extended committee hearings across the country so that Canadians everywhere would have a chance to participate.

I suggest the member look in the mirror and see how his government could have improved the process so that all Canadians could have participated on a meaningful basis.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-78 and to follow the words of my esteemed colleague, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who has served this House and the Canadian public for some 28 years. I consider it a privilege to work with someone with that experience, who has made an incredible contribution not only for his own constituents but for Canadians everywhere.

I noticed, despite these 28 years of service, that my NDP colleague for Regina—Qu'Appelle used the word theft. That word was not singled out as being unparliamentary, but I understand it could be borderline and it is not an appropriate word to use. However, I think that word, if we were able to say it out loud in this place, would best characterize what we are dealing with when it comes to Bill C-78.

This reminds me of an issue I dealt with as a member of the legislative assembly of Manitoba in 1988 when we were dealing with serious and drastic cutbacks to our child care system engineered by the then Conservative government. I had been working with many groups trying to deal with and stop these cutbacks. My son, who is 10 years old today, was about 2 at the time and, having heard all of this talk from me about government cutbacks, proceeded to announce to the world that the Conservative government had come to his daycare and stolen all the money. Out of the mouths of babes come words of truth and wisdom. I think that is exactly what we are dealing with today. I wish I could say those words that would best epitomize just what Bill C-78 means.

I want to address a couple of points today along the lines of the remarks of my colleague for Regina—Qu'Appelle. The first has to do with the arbitrary, undemocratic way in which the government is handling this piece of legislation and the way it has approached just about every piece of legislation in this entire parliamentary session.

In all the times I have spoken in the House, and there have been a good number in the last couple of years, on just about every occasion I and my colleagues have been forced to deal with the issue of closure. Whenever a bill is presented to this House, debate starts to take off and the public starts to get interested, what does the government do? The government brings down the heavy instrument of closure, time allocation. I know my colleague from the Reform Party touched on this in her question about what has changed in our democracy and what has gone wrong. I think the trend is clear and worrisome.

I understand from some reports that closure was a very rarely used tool. Between Confederation and 1956 it was only used half a dozen times.

Let us compare that to how many times the government has brought in closure in the last two years. If my count is up to date, time allocation has been brought in 12 to 14 times in the space of two years. This is an incredible development, an incredible attack on our rights in the Chamber and on the whole notion of democracy. Is it any wonder Canadians are cynical and skeptical about politicians and about our democratic institutions when this kind of process is allowed to take place?

Some of those sentiments are best described in a letter that was sent to the Kitchener-Waterloo Record by David Crow, a retired airline pilot:

This is nothing more than autocracy masquerading as democracy.

Canadians now live in what can only be described as a benign dictatorship where policy decisions concerning their future are made behind closed doors. Amid the pomp and tradition of parliament lies a system which has become fractious, insensitive, remote and elitist. The antiquated system no longer has the support of most Canadians.

I would hope we would hear those words and understand and appreciate that if we are to renew people's faith in democracy, in parliament and in participatory democracy, surely we have to address what is happening in the Chamber and the shocking way in which the government has been so arbitrary and dictatorial.

Members of the House will remember the kind of anger the present House leader of the Liberal government displayed when the Conservatives brought in closure in their time in government. He went on a rampage about this tactic and actually said “Shame on those Tories across the way”.

Today the situation is much more serious. We say to the House leader and to all other members of the Liberal government, shame on them for bringing in closure so many times whenever there is an important issue before the House and whenever we need to hear from Canadians and value their input in order to put before the public the very best possible legislation. It is with regret that once more we are dealing with that issue and we will continue to speak out on it.

The next point I want to make is on the problems we have with the legislation on a substantive basis. I do not need to repeat all the arguments we have heard from the NDP on this issue time and time again. We are absolutely opposed to the bill which grabs $30 billion in pension surplus to be used at the discretion of the government, whether that be in general revenue or any other expenditure it chooses. We have registered time and time again our concern with that arbitrary move on the part of the government and with its failure to reach some sort of agreement with all the different organizations involved.

It has been said time and time again how important it is to honour and respect the contribution senior citizens have given to the country. The bill does the opposite. As my colleague from Regina said, it is holding pensioners in contempt by not recognizing their contribution and working out an arrangement to ensure the surplus is put to the best possible use.

Many have commented on how it is so ironic that the bill is before the House at the same time as the government is participating in this year's UN's international year of the older person, a year intended to mark the contributions of our senior citizens, to recognize their achievements and to create intergenerational respect and support.

Is it not ironic that we are dealing with a bill which does the opposite? At the same time we are trying to celebrate the international year of older persons which has been called “Canada: A Society for All Ages”. That is the height of hypocrisy which must be clearly noted in debate.

Some of my colleagues asked whether in looking for a reasonable approach to pension surplus the actual level of poverty among some of our senior citizens was considered and in particular the fact that older women were among the poorest of all poor. It was pointed out in earlier debate that a woman who served in the civil service for 20 years ended up with about $9,600 a year in retirement funds. The reallocation of this surplus toward people such as these women, the poorest of the poor in the country, would have made a big difference.

I have much more I would like to say, but I urge all members of the House to oppose Bill C-78 which takes $30 billion out of the pension funds.

As my hon. colleague from Regina did, I urge members on the Liberal side to reconsider their opposition to the bill on the basis that it is supporting a recognition of rights for people regardless of sexual orientation. We certainly support that provision but seriously and strongly oppose Bill C-78.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am really happy to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-68.

I along with most members in this House have a clear sense from constituents and Canadians everywhere of their need to feel safe and secure in their neighbourhoods. I do not think anyone here can say that they are not fully aware of the worry and concern citizens of this nation have everywhere about peace and quality of life and security in their communities.

It is a topical consideration today given the shootings that have happened in the schools in Colorado and Taber, Alberta. Those incidents have made us all stop, pause and think about what we can do to work with our young people. We must ensure that embarking upon criminal activities and violence is dealt with in a meaningful and positive way at an age when it can make a difference and we can see a reduction in crime and violence.

Bill C-68 is an important step in addressing the broad range of concerns around youth justice issues, but it is not the whole picture. It is not a comprehensive approach. It does not deal with the range of issues that parliament should be dealing with if we are going to make a real difference.

My own community is an example of where the government needs to be involved and how we can support the kind of spirit of community, the self-help initiative that is springing up everywhere in this country. My community, the north end neighbourhood, is typical of an inner city. Inevitably we will be dealing with difficult situations as long as there is no leadership and as long as there is a policy vacuum in terms of quality of life and economic opportunity.

I am not here to say that we should just eliminate poverty and ensure economic opportunities for everyone and that will put an end to violence and crime. I am not that naive but I do know that quality of life at the community level plays a role.

I looked at my own community of Winnipeg North Centre. In my own neighbourhood we have seen business after business close up shop and move out. Banks have moved their branches from my neighbourhood to a suburban community. The local drugstore has shut down. We have lost the local post office. We have lost the one meaningful recreational opportunity for young people, the North Y in Winnipeg.

Put all of that together and picture a community of boarded up businesses and homes. They are boarded up because this government and the provincial government have abdicated responsibility for the deteriorating housing stock in our communities and for the lack of economic opportunity. If we put all of that together we have a crisis. We have a critical situation.

How can we begin to address the matters of youth justice and deal with a perceived if not a real increase in violent crime among young people unless we look in our own backyards and realize what the causes are of that kind of behaviour and what is making young people want to join gangs as they are doing in large numbers in Winnipeg and in other inner cities right across the country.

In the face of all of that it is encouraging that communities are deciding to do something about it. In the case of Winnipeg North Centre we have had community after community establishing on a volunteer basis safety patrols. These patrols are made up of volunteers who devote their weekends and their evenings, from 10 o'clock at night until 3 o'clock in the morning, to patrol neighbourhoods. They chase away prostitutes, make it difficult for someone to commit a crime, pick up used syringes and create a sense of security and safety for people who live in those neighbourhoods.

That is incredible devotion and an incredible contribution to the issue we are dealing with today under the auspices of Bill C-68. That is the kind of effort we need to recognize and we need to support in conjunction with those groups. I want to especially single out those volunteers who constitute the Northend Patrol under Community United for Change, the Manitoba Avenue Patrol, the Night Owls, the Flora Place Patrol and the Weston Brooklands Patrol. Those are five groups that have sprung up in a year to start to take control over the situation and to make a real and lasting contribution. They are supported, as much as possible, by community based policing efforts, a program that is doing well in Winnipeg. It needs to be supported and I am sure it has been replicated in other parts of the country.

It is that community based approach, working with volunteers, working with communities, working with organizations which want to ensure that the pride of neighbourhood and spirit of co-operation is alive and well, that we must build on. That is what we need to address when we are talking about Bill C-68.

It makes an attempt to begin to address the broad issues that cause crime and violence among young people. It recognizes the responsibility of communities, parents and families, and it begins to suggest that our youth justice system must look at how effective we are in terms of consequences and punitive measures, but it also must look at how we actually play a role in terms of rehabilitation and the prevention of youth crime in our communities today.

That is an important effort, but does it go far enough? Does it support what is happening in our communities? Will it make a difference?

The NDP critic for justice has clearly spoken about our concerns with respect to the level of funding committed by the government to back up its legislation and has actually said that $206 million over three years is not exactly a lot of money if it is applied on a per capita basis. It is not a lot of money if we are seriously looking at a meaningful, comprehensive system of youth justice. There is no question that we have to look at resources and we have to have the political will to make this concept a reality.

I hate to say this, but Manitoba had the highest growth in youth crime between 1990 and 1997. Manitoba has had a 34% increase in violent youth crime in the last seven or eight years. That is an awful record. That is an awful thing for me to have to stand and say, but our job here today is to figure out why that has happened and what we can do to reverse that trend. We have to look at ourselves, we have to look at the federal government and we have to look at the provincial governments.

In the case of Manitoba we are dealing with a situation where the federal government has failed to back up its commitment to deal with this issue in terms of real dollars and real initiative. We are dealing with a provincial government, the Manitoba Conservatives, who continually point fingers. All they do is point fingers at the federal government and say “You are the bad guys. You fix the problem. Give us more money and the whole problem will be solved”.

We know that both levels of government are culpable of this inability to deal with a very serious problem. As a result, we have the worst backlog of court cases anywhere in Canada. There are serious concerns about dangerous releases and ineffective controls and standards for release. We know we have problems around weak prosecution. We have not dealt with opportunities for young people. All of those issues, those problems, those concerns, are at the heart of the issue we are dealing with today. The responsibility for dealing with them rests in large measure with the federal government working in tandem with the provincial government of Manitoba.

The community will is there. The efforts are in place. Communities are willing to help themselves, but they need the support of government to back up those efforts and to ensure that wherever we go and whatever we do there are meaningful programs in place so that young people will face up to what they have done and know that the consequences will be immediate and effective.

While this bill goes some distance in recognizing that, I am afraid it does not address the scope of the problem and will fall short unless we can convince members of the government to back up this initiative with meaningful policies and significant dollars.

[National Housing Act, May 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have been rising at every opportunity to speak against Bill C-66 and I continue to do that today.

When I put this bill in the context of the larger agenda being pursued by the Liberal government, it is obvious why members on this side of the House, at least those in the New Democratic Party, are opposing Bill C-66. It is our view that this bill completes the circle for the Liberal government. It completes a process by which it totally and absolutely offloads its responsibility for housing to provincial and municipal governments as well as to individual citizens right across the country.

It is interesting that whenever I raise this broader agenda, members of the Liberal government sit there and shake their heads. It is absolutely important to put on the record exactly what the government has done. I am sure it will come as no surprise when I clarify for members opposite that Canada, particularly the province of Manitoba where I come from, has not really built any public or social housing since 1994.

Why did that happen? Not to put all the blame on the Liberal government, let us remind ourselves that the former Conservative government, the Mulroney government began the process of offloading in the area of public housing. It was really this government when it came to power in 1993 that put the final stake in the whole effort. Today Bill C-66 completes that circle.

We are trying to persuade members opposite. If they are truly concerned as they seem to pretend to be about meeting the needs of Canadians for adequate shelter regardless of where they may live, then surely they will consider these serious amendments we have put before the House. If not, then they should at least pull back the bill and reconsider their entire policy. We are talking about the importance of good public policy whether it is about shelter, about health, about safety or about quality of life.

It is absolutely clear from all analysts everywhere that quality public housing plays a direct role in terms of the health and well-being of Canadians. I remind members of that fact from a Manitoba perspective. Recently in some of our northern and remote communities there has been an unbelievable increase in the rate of tuberculosis. It would not take much analysis to realize that the rise in a disease which we thought we had stamped out forever is directly related to poor quality housing on reserves and in our northern and remote communities.

My colleagues in Manitoba have tried to make that point on many occasions. They have stated very clearly that the comeback of tuberculosis in Manitoba is further proof that many people living in overcrowded housing in remote communities face severe health risks.

That is but one example of how poor and inadequate housing can actually contribute to disease and ill health. It can actually cost all of us a great deal in the long run because we have not been prepared to act today. Good housing makes good health care policy.

It is absolutely clear when there is deteriorating housing, when many houses are boarded up and vacant, as in my constituency of Winnipeg North Centre, it has an impact on the whole sense of security and safety for the neighbourhood and community. In my community because of government offloading and lack of political will to address this very serious issue, dozens and dozens of boarded up houses are just waiting for arsonists to set them alight. That affects the entire community and it costs us all dearly.

In response to this very serious state of affairs, and what some would call a state of emergency, community activists are trying to get a handle on the situation and do what they can to turn the situation around. In the case of Winnipeg North Centre, in the last year five neighbourhood patrols have been established to ensure some sense of safety in neighbourhoods.

I want to acknowledge the kind of work the community is prepared to do, the kind of initiative that is coming from residents. That should be but a way to urge this government to act; not to simply say that it is good the community is doing something, but to say that it is good that there is a real sense to take hold of our destiny. Now let us support those efforts and work with communities to improve the quality of housing and safety for all citizens.

As I said, in just one year five neighbourhood safety patrols have sprung up in my area. They include the Northend Patrol, the Manitoba Avenue Patrol, the Night Owls, the Flora Place Patrol. More are springing up and working with residents to ensure safety.

It is very important for this government to realize that when it invests in housing, as it is not doing now and as it will not be able to do with Bill C-66, it will have a far reaching influence on the quality of life in our communities.

In my riding, community groups are working very closely with community policing efforts. Everyone is doing their part. However, the time has come for action and there is such an urgent need. There is so much deterioration of housing stock because of the retreat from this public policy area by governments. It truly is a crisis. It truly is a state of emergency. It truly does require the government to act now and act as comprehensively as possible.

[Petitions, May 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to present a petition today signed by hundreds of Canadians, a petition indicating Canadians remain very concerned about the government's commitment to our beloved system of medicare.

This petition is part of a much larger effort to send a message to the government. I want to acknowledge the efforts of the Save Medicare Committee, particularly the work done by Russ Rak who is with the CAW local 222, retired workers chapter.

This petition calls upon the government to preserve and enforce the Canada Health Act and actually to go further and ensure that national standards of quality publicly funded health care for every Canadian citizen are guaranteed as a right.

[National Housing Act, May 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, you will have heard me speak in the House many times about the smoke and mirror tactics of the government.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I have to begin my speech today by saying it is in the area of housing, specifically when it comes to Bill C-66, that we have probably the best example yet of a government that is prepared to trick Canadians into believing it is providing a great service on housing, while in fact it does the reverse and does as little as possible.

The parliamentary secretary tried to suggest that we have a bill before us with the great noble intention of reducing red tape. If that were the case, in the context of good public policy on housing, I would say bravo. But when we are left with a choice between reduced red tape and not having any good public social housing, then I would rather take the red tape, as would all Canadians.

Canadians want to see this government assume responsibility for an issue in society today of fundamental human rights, which is adequate shelter for all Canadians regardless of where they may live. This bill is about fundamental differences in viewpoints and philosophical approaches. Behind it all is absolutely without question a deliberate policy, a deliberate approach on the part of the Liberal government to abdicate responsibility for meeting its obligations of adequate shelter for all Canadians and offloading as quickly as possible onto other levels of government and onto Canadian individuals.

Bill C-66 complements the government's agenda of completely abdicating the field of social housing, of transferring responsibility for co-operative housing to the provinces. The government is clearly on record as stating it is not prepared to increase by one cent in the area of meeting the necessary housing requirements of Canadians.

The amendments before the House are designed specifically to require the government to get back into the housing picture, to resume its responsibilities, to restore federal involvement in such a vital social policy area.

There are many connections to be made today between this bill and the Liberal government's illusory politics. It is smoke and mirror tactics.

[Canada Pension Plan, May 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering why the Minister of Health cannot speak for himself and why the Minister of Finance has to keep pulling rank.

I want to ask the Minister of Health specifically what he thinks about public money, Canadians' dollars, our funds, going into tobacco companies which prey on young people. I want to know what he is going to do to ensure that he puts together a comprehensive strategy for preventing smoking among people. That includes an ethical investment policy for the CPP.