Judy Wasylycia-Leis

[Canada Pension Plan, May 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the government is linking its new CPP investment fund to the TSE 300 index. That index includes Imasco, Imperial Tobacco's parent company, a company that profits from the targeting of young smokers. The health minister should know that any plan for persuading Canadians not to smoke cannot and should not be good for tobacco profits.

Does the Minister of Health agree with the Minister of Finance that it is okay for CPP funds to support tobacco companies like Imperial Tobacco?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 4th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, yes, I blame the Liberal government. But Reform members who are advocating and talking about accommodating the notion of a parallel private health care system are seeking the same objective as the Liberal government. Both parties are seeking the dismantling and erosion of medicare to the point where we will have nothing but an Americanized, privatized two tier health care system.

Our plea today is to reverse this agenda. The federal budget made a tiny step in that direction by putting back some of the money it took out of the system in 1993. But it is not enough to stop that encroachment on the private sector. It is not enough to stop the waiting lists. It is not enough to ensure access to quality health care services for all Canadians. It is not enough to take the stress off nurses who feel they are not able to perform their lifelong goal of providing quality care for patients because of the financial pressures on the system.

If we all share that goal and for the sake of medicare, if the Reform Party truly accepts this notion of the universally accessible publicly administered health system, then for goodness' sake let us join together in convincing the government that it must reverse the trend. The government must ensure there is adequate support for the provinces in our health system. The government must show leadership to ensure that the principles of the health care act apply to every aspect of our health care system to stop the emergence of a private two tier health care system.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 4th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am also pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-71 and in particular to address the amendment proposed by the Bloc.

Let me begin by starting where the Reform Party left off. I take some umbrage with the last speaker's comment. What we are dealing with here is more than a mathematical equation. When we address health care needs, if we are at all serious about formulating good policy, we have to look at need. Surely the member from the Reform Party understands that a straight cap will not necessarily reflect the needs, particularly the acute needs in various regions of this country. It certainly would not reflect the third world conditions that we now see in northern and remote communities in all parts of the country.

We must go beyond looking at a straight per capita formula and start looking at questions of ensuring that our publicly administered health care system can be funded to the extent to which it is the dominant mould by which we provide health care in the country.

I would urge the members of the Reform Party to look very carefully at how the ratio between public and private spending is shifting. Under the present system and under the formula proposed by the Reform Party, we will soon see private control over our health care system dominate completely.

It would put at risk the fundamentals of our health care system, the very notion of a universally accessible health care system. Certainly if not in a direct way, in a most insidious way we would see the end of medicare, the end of the five principles under the Canada Health Act and the end of our system that is the envy of the world over, a single tier, universally accessible, publicly administered health care system.

Having made those introductory comments in response to Reform's proposition, let me say how important it is to have this opportunity to participate in the discussion on the 1999 budget particularly because it has been called the health care budget. It is important to have this debate because the government has denied us opportunities on every front to ensure that we hold the government accountable for its expenditures particularly when it comes to health care.

I want to say for the record that if it were not for this opportunity today, we would have little chance to scrutinize the government's expenditures in any area, particularly health care. The estimates process at the committee level has become a charade. There is very little opportunity at the committee level, because of the way the government controls the committee process, to ensure that we have ample time to scrutinize the expenditures of the government. That particularly applies in the area of health care. Based on the committee of which I am a member, given the dictates of the Liberal government and its hold over the committee system, we will be lucky to have four sessions, maybe eight hours of discussion on an incredibly large and costly part of our system.

I want to take every opportunity I can to speak on health care because of the arbitrary and autocratic way in which this government has operated. It has taken away so many opportunities for true participation by members of the House and for true democracy to prevail.

This government has tried to portray the 1999 budget as a health care budget. The question for all of us today is does it in its details actually accomplish that objective and meet that description? We have heard today and from Canadians everywhere that it does not. One could actually say that the government has presented us with another example of smoke and mirrors, another attempt at illusory politics, another way to disguise the real issues.

What the government has done in this budget when it comes to health care is that in five years time it will get us back to the level we enjoyed in 1993 when the government began its very massive cutback and offloading in health care. I do not need to repeat the statistics. Canadians are fully aware of them. They were as shocked as we were when we realized the full impact of this budget and what it actually meant in terms of federal support and federal responsibility for quality health care.

The best way I can put it is to recognize that when all is said and done, federal spending as a percentage of all health care spending amounts to 12%. Just think back. That is a long way from the notion of 50:50 cost sharing as was once the case. In actuality it truly happened; we used to have a 50:50 federal-provincial cost shared arrangement on health care. That is certainly a long way from the 25% goal that many experts in this field have recommended as the bare minimum for government.

Where are we at? We are at 12%. Where is private spending in this country? It has grown to 30% of all spending on health care. It does not take much calculating to figure out what that actually means and what kind of system we end up with. We end up with a two tier health care system, no ifs, ands or buts.

Some would say that we already have a two tier health care system. Absolutely. Why do we have a two tier health care system? Because the federal government dropped the ball, offloaded responsibility, cut back to the point where it has created a wide open climate for private investment to insert itself and encroach on a whole area once considered absolutely sacred as a public service. How does that show up in the lives of ordinary Canadians?

It shows up in Alberta where the provincial government continues to advance the notion of a private hospital. There has been no retreat from that despite public outcry. It shows up in Prince Edward Island in the form of the possibility of a hospital that will be run on one of the so-called public-private partnerships.

It shows up in the fact that privately funded MRIs, magnetic resonance imaging machinery, are springing up all over the country and are available on a two tier basis. People who have the money can get access. Those who do not, tough luck. It shows up in the form of private eye clinics springing up all over the country.

[National Housing Act, April 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-66 and specifically the proposed amendments to the bill as outlined in Group No. 1.

I would like to begin by raising the broad issue of housing in this country today. I do not think there is anyone in this House who will deny that there is a housing crisis in Canada. In fact, many would go beyond simply calling it a crisis. The mayors of capital cities right across the country have called it a national disaster and the facts bear that out.

More than 100,000 Canadians are homeless. We know the situation facing our aboriginal community both off reserve and on reserve. The backlog of houses in first nations communities in the north exceeds 4,500.

Communities right across the country especially in our inner cities and older neighbourhoods, have a major problem in terms of the housing stock.

In my constituency of Winnipeg North Centre, we are faced with what can only be described as such a deplorable situation that a state of emergency should be declared. This is not unique to Winnipeg North Centre. My community represents the same kind of concerns we see from one end of the country to the other.

There are vacant and boarded up houses. Houses and buildings have become targets just waiting for arsonists. I do not need to tell the House that there is a very high incidence of arson in my community and in other communities across the country with the deplorable situation in terms of housing stock and the many boarded up vacant houses.

We are talking about absentee landlords. We are talking about lack of dollars being provided either by government or from an individual's own disposable income for renovations and upkeep. We are talking about drastically dropping market values for housing in some of our inner cities and older neighbourhoods. We are talking about red circling by insurance companies which makes it very difficult to purchase the necessary protection for one's house. We are talking about insurmountable barriers to home ownership.

All of those factors have to be noted in this debate because they are taking a devastating toll. It is so apparent through the bill before us today that this government pays no heed. At the precise moment when the need is the greatest our federal government is pursuing a policy of abandonment.

Let us not forget it is federal withdrawal from the areas of public housing, social housing, co-operative housing and non-profit housing that in very large measure has caused this crisis in the first place. Why then would the government do more of the same? Why at a time of crisis would the government do the opposite of what is required?

Why would this government retreat even further from its responsibilities as it is doing in Bill C-66? Why at precisely the moment when this country needs a national housing strategy and national housing standards would this government introduce measures to complete its policy of abandonment?

In my community, as I am sure is the case in other centres across the country, citizens and community organizations are trying to fight back. In the true spirit of Winnipeg's north end, citizens are banding together to find co-operative, collective, community based solutions.

Neighbourhood patrols are springing up. There are economic development initiatives. Housing renewal projects are developing in response to this critical situation. But the federal government is not participating, supporting, encouraging and ensuring that we can come up with realistic solutions to this very grave problem. Why will this government not support this spirit of community and pride of neighbourhood?

We are focusing in this debate on a government that refuses to see what is happening around it and refuses to recognize that it must be part of the solution. Bill C-66 is going in the wrong direction. It is absolutely the wrong remedy for the critical situation we are facing. The amendments being proposed by the Reform Party in this grouping do not make the situation any better. They will undoubtedly make the situation worse and will contribute even more to a government policy that is bound and determined to put everything in the context of the marketplace in terms of efficiency and competitiveness.

The government has a moral obligation, a political responsibility and a constitutional obligation to ensure that Canadians everywhere in the country have the right to adequate shelter. This bill and these amendments do not satisfy those requirements.

We are here to try to convince the government, although I know it seems far-fetched, to withdraw Bill C-66. The measure of good government and great leadership is in the government's ability to respond to needs. It is in the ability of a government to reverse its policies when it can see that the needs are growing, spreading and becoming critical right across the country.

It is not too much to ask the minister to reverse his policies, put this bill on ice and go back to the drawing board and start to look at some of the promises that were actually made to the people back in 1993.

It is useful to remind the Liberals about their policies in 1993 when they were still in opposition. I want to specifically mention a letter dated September 22, 1993 signed by the present Minister of Finance in which he said “Our platform document provides a framework for government in the 1990s. We believe the federal government has a positive, proactive role in national housing policy and the responsibility of accessibility and affordability to over one million Canadian households living in need of adequate shelter”.

What happened to that promise? What happened to that election platform? Why do we have Bill C-66 before us today? Instead of the amendments that we have before us today, which make the CMHC more of a competitive force in the marketplace, we should be seeing amendments to a bill today that reflect the needs in our communities and make mortgages more accessible to those who are having a hard time.

I specifically want to implore the government to look at the whole question of changing the rules and regulations to make it possible for people on low incomes or on social assistance to be eligible for home ownership and to be able to benefit from public policy.

I remind the government that it had promised earlier to consider changing the arrangements under the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to address concerns about eligibility of social assistance recipients for CMHC underwriting. It had promised to look at the question of sweat equity as a means of satisfying down payment requirements. We have heard nothing on that front.

What we hear is CMHC becoming more competitive and putting housing out for export. While the government talks about exporting housing, people in this country are living in squalid and deplorable housing conditions.

We want to tell the government to stop and look at its priorities, look at the needs in the country and recognize that we absolutely must have leadership from our national government. We have to have a national housing policy. We are the only OECD country that does not have a national housing policy. It is deplorable, it is negligent and it must be addressed.

We urge the government to reconsider this bill and come back with a progressive, innovative policy to deal with the serious crisis in our country today.

[Hepatitis C, April 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, what the minister does not say is that none of that money is flowing and there is no care for the people who need it. For a year now we have heard these hollow words about care, not cash. After a year we have no care and no cash.

Does the minister not realize that in the past year 200 victims have died? Has he not read his own study showing that hepatitis C victims are experiencing eight times the normal number of health problems?

Will the Minister of Health finally acknowledge that his plan has utterly failed to improve the lives of hepatitis C victims, and bring forward a just and fair compensation package for all those infected because of government—

[Hepatitis C, April 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, a year has passed since this government ignored its legal and moral responsibility to compensate all victims of hepatitis C. Still nothing for those who were arbitrarily left out after a year. Not a penny of the limited $1.1 billion compensation package has flowed. He cannot even get his meagre $50 million community support program up and running.

Yesterday in the House the parliamentary secretary said that these issues will be resolved in the tradition of moderate compromise. Does the Liberal government not get it? It is Liberal compromising that has caused this mess in the first place. Will the Minister of Health stop compromising and start living up—

[Hepatitis C, April 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the motion brought forward by the member for New Brunswick Southwest, which is very timely and appropriate.

It is true that it is about one year ago today that we were faced with a most regrettable situation which will go down as a very sorry chapter in the history of this country. Joey Haché and other victims of hepatitis C were in the gallery and observed the proceedings as the government cracked the whip and required all members of the Liberal Party in the House to vote against a motion that would have ensured fair and just compensation for all victims of hepatitis C in this country.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health talks about the successes around this issue. I have a hard time trying to find any successes on this issue. I feel nothing really but much shame and embarrassment that we have a government today which failed to do the right thing in terms of this being a moral issue and to follow the legal requirements, as we understand them to be, ensuring that all Canadians are able to have access to blood products, to drugs, to food and to medical devices that are safe beyond a reasonable doubt.

The parliamentary secretary referred to several measures which she says provide evidence of that success. She points to the $1.1 billion settlement for compensation cases which fall between the period of 1986-1990. She fails to mention that not one penny of that $1.1 billion has been paid out.

It was only about a month ago that we received a press release from the hepatitis C organizations on the anniversary of the day when the government made its very arbitrary and regrettable decision to limit compensation to those infected between 1986 and 1990. The Canadian Hemophilia Society reminded us that it has been a year since this compensation was promised. Erma Chapman, the head of the Canadian Hemophilia Society, stated very clearly that there has been no money paid to any of the victims. She stated: “There are seriously ill people who urgently require treatment but do not have the financial resources to pay for it. The hepatitis C virus is one that can cause serious liver damage that can lead to death. We call on the federal government to provide a method to fast-track assistance to those in serious need of treatment and care for their hepatitis C infections. Victims have died waiting for help from their government”.

On the first point that the government makes with respect to its so-called success in this area, the government has failed to ensure that any method of compensation is active in ensuring that victims of hepatitis C are receiving some sort of assistance.

The second point which was made concerns the financial commitment of this government to assist provincial governments in meeting the medical needs of hepatitis C victims and in helping community groups support education, as well as ensuring that quality of life mechanisms are in place for victims of hepatitis C. There has been very little movement in that regard. I refer specifically to the fact that on September 18, 1998 the Minister of Health clearly announced a $50 million program to ensure that there would be assistance and help when it comes to hepatitis C disease prevention, community based support programs and research. That program is still not up and running. Not a penny of that $50 million is flowing to community organizations and victim support groups to ensure that the system is in place to provide meaningful support at a time of crisis.

As a part of its so-called successes, the government has also talked about its movement to ensure that proper and active regulatory systems are in place to absolutely guarantee that this kind of tragedy will never happen again. In the year that has passed since we last dealt with this very critical issue we have seen nothing but evidence after evidence that the government has not learned one lesson from the blood tragedy which this country experienced or acted on one bit of advice from Justice Krever who called very clearly for the government to recognize the error of its ways and to move toward an active, not a passive, regulatory approach when it comes to blood, food and drugs.

As an observer watching this government, it would almost seem that it has forgotten the lessons of the past, that it has decided to completely ignore Justice Krever because it has shown not one iota of interest in moving toward a firm, active, intensive regulatory approach in all of these areas around which human safety and health is so much a question.

We just had the experience of going through four months of hearings around the issue of organ and tissue donation and transplantation. It was a major disappointment for us to learn that this government had not learned from Justice Krever and was not prepared to apply the recommendations of the Krever report when it came to organs and tissues. Canadians see that blood is no different than organs and tissues. All are invasive procedures which require extra precautionary methods, yet this government refuses to take a proactive approach when it comes to the safety of Canadians. It has put on the table a risk management framework for the matter of organs and tissues, suggesting, despite everything we have learned from the blood tragedy, that there may be circumstances under which this government may not be held liable. For the first time, despite Krever, this government is actually raising the possibility of indemnification from the responsibility of ensuring the safety of Canadians on all of those issues and matters regulated under the Food and Drugs Act.

I have a hard time pointing to any successes on this issue. My colleagues in the New Democratic Party and I are left with the need to keep raising this issue and to try to convince the government to reopen this sorry chapter in the history of our society.

Many things have actually happened in the year since Joey Haché and others were in the gallery watching developments unfold, not the least of which was a major documentary by the Fifth Estate in January 1999 pointing to the serious problems with respect to blood collected from prisoners in the United States coming into this country and the government not taking precautions.

It was further evidence to Justice Krever's report about the deplorable actions of this government, the absolute negligence on the part of this government to ensure the safety of blood products. I think that evidence alone should be enough for the government to realize that it must reopen this question and it must look for a way to ensure compensation for all victims of hepatitis C because we are dealing with the failure of this government to uphold its responsibilities under the law of the land.

I would use the same words that the member for New Brunswick Southwest used in quoting Justice Krever who said “The compassion of a society can be judged by the measures it takes to reduce the impact of tragedy on its members”.

With those words in mind, today we are calling on the government to show the compassion and leadership Canadians have come to expect from their national government toward victims of tragedies and disasters. We urge the government to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that hepatitis C victims in this tragic episode are equally compensated.

It is only through this and putting in place corrective measures to ensure that these circumstances are never repeated that we as a nation can move forward with confidence and a sense of justice worthy of Canada's traditions.

[Supply, April 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in debate and dialogue on the war in Kosovo. Unfortunately I did not have that opportunity during the take note debate on April 12 because the time available was not sufficient to ensure that every member of parliament who was interested in having a dialogue on the issue was able to participate.

Some would question why we need another debate. What is the purpose of today's debate? I can only say to all those individuals that this is an issue that is consuming Canadians everywhere across this country. It is an issue that deserves our utmost attention. It is an issue around which we have to be consumed and giving of our time and energy.

We are here today with this motion because we know we have to find a solution, a peaceful solution, a diplomatic solution, a political solution to a crisis that has gone on far too long. We are here today because it is day 35. It is now 35 days since NATO began its air strikes over Yugoslavia. It is 35 days of seeing images of bombing, of death, of destruction every time we turn on the TV or open a newspaper.

These images are not just being seen by all of us in this chamber. Canadians everywhere are experiencing those images and asking questions. Why? Was there any other way? How long? Where will it go? What does it mean?

We started grappling with this issue shortly after the bombing began, when we knew there was no immediate resolution and quick expedition of an end to this crisis as we were promised and as was suggested by the government. Shortly after that we all had to start asking those questions. We had to hold ourselves accountable to constituents and Canadians everywhere about what it meant.

Many Canadians at that point were starting to ask if this was possibly another Vietnam. The news media started commenting on the possibilities of World War III. Originally I thought that I was being paranoid, that this cannot be, that it is not reality. But as the days have progressed, those thoughts have come to dominate the dialogue in this country.

We know and understand, and I am sure all members in this House understand, that it is absolutely imperative for us to keep searching for a peaceful diplomatic resolution of this crisis.

All of us in one way or another are forced to answer the questions of young children who see the images on TV and wonder what it means and where it is going. It is getting harder and harder to answer those questions. It is getting harder and harder to offer assurances to young children about the hope and prospect of a peaceful world.

Many today have talked about what we have been hearing and feeling over the last number of days and weeks. Some have talked about the images of hundreds of thousands of refugees living in squalid conditions without any hope of returning to their homeland.

We have heard others talk about the images of people left stranded, starving and without hope within Kosovo. We have seen and heard about the impact of the bombing and all of its devastation in terms of the economy, the environment and people's very lives. Over and over again we are taking in this news, trying to digest it and to figure out what we can do.

The member for Durham suggested that we have tried peaceful solutions, that there are no peaceful solutions, that we have to live with what we have got. We are here to say, as we have said clearly every day since parliament returned on April 12, that there has to be a peaceful, political and diplomatic solution.

Today there were signs and we received some news that there is a little bit of progress. The Prime Minister announced today that Canada would be sending in 800 troops to be part of a peacekeeping effort in the region.

Mr. Speaker, before I continue, I want to indicate that I am dividing my time with the member for Sydney—Victoria.

Today there was a little news that we could take some comfort in. However, at the same time that an announcement was made about Canada participating in a peacekeeping force in the region, we heard that the government was as determined as ever to participate in accelerated and expanded military actions and activities in the region.

We heard the Prime Minister say today absolutely and unequivocally that the oil embargo will happen. He said that notwithstanding the possibility of accelerating the conflict because of the situation involving Russia. We heard no suggestion by the Minister of National Defence or anyone else in the government that they will put a hold on sending more CF-18s into the region.

At the same time the government talks about putting in peacekeeping troops and searching for diplomatic solutions, there is no sign that the government is showing the kind of leadership on the diplomatic front which is absolutely required. This motion is here today to say stop accelerating military action and start accelerating diplomatic alternatives.

There has to be an option. Thirty-five days of death and destruction and the possibility of the aggression spreading and of this war continuing for any length of time are enough to make all of us say that we have to find that diplomatic peaceful solution. The government has to keep trying to find that peaceful alternative.

We said as early as March 31 that there had to be reinvigorated efforts on the part of the government to call for a suspension in military operations at the same time as calling for Milosevic to stop the atrocities on the ground. We stood in the House and called for the government to stand up and show leadership around the uniting for peace alternative. We are here today to urge the government to show that leadership at this critical time in this long and drawn-out conflict.

I want to reflect a concern of my constituents and Canadians about the future. While we grapple with this situation, while we are searching, pleading, urging and working toward peaceful diplomatic solutions to the crisis in Kosovo, we also know it is not too soon to begin thinking about the future and ensuring that this never happens again.

I want to mention a quote from Marcus Gee, as did the Liberal member for Scarborough East. This is in the context of the kind of dual role the United Nations is expected to fulfil and the obligation it imposes on all of us as we go down the path to the future.

Those two roles combine the old idea involving the integrity of nations with the newer idea involving the integrity of the individual. Based on that idea, it shows that the UN holds responsibility for promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all. It is in the fulfilment of those dual objectives that we must learn lessons from the Kosovo crisis.

As a parliament, as a country and as a member of the international community, we must now seek solutions of a diplomatic, peaceful nature that will ensure that we are able to address any atrocities against human beings anywhere.

I am faced with questions daily from constituents who say, “Do we as a country have a double standard? Does NATO have a double standard? How did we respond as a nation, as an international community to the Kurds in Turkey? How do we respond to the situation in East Timor? What is our record on Guatemala?” Those questions keep coming back to us.

It is imperative that we end that double standard and put all of our energy and resources into finding a mechanism at the international level for combining our dual responsibility around the integrity of nations and the integrity of the individual.

[Cancer, April 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we are ending cancer month on a note of despair, not hope.

We have firefighters here today trying to get the government to minimize exposure to cancer causing hazardous products. We also have new statistics showing that lung cancer related deaths are actually going up. This year 17,000 Canadians will die from lung cancer.

Tragically these deaths are preventable because nine out of ten are caused by smoking and smoking, we know, is not an accident. That is why tobacco companies spend millions of dollars advertising their products. We know the rate among young people is actually going up and advertising plays a role.

The real question for us today is: Why is the federal government so acquiescent in the face of pressure from industry? Why does it not listen to the firefighters and implement Operation Respond? Why does it not listen to the cancer society and to the voices of young people and actually do something about young people and smoking?

As we wrap up another cancer month, let us recommit ourselves to do whatever we can to stamp out this deadly disease.

[Health, April 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear Canada has a critical shortage of organ donations. It is also clear that Canadians want action and they want safety.

Under the government they get neither, no commitment to a national donor registry and a complete abdication of health protection by ignoring the Krever report and treating organs as if they were toasters.

Will the minister today commit to doing what Canadians want? Will he stand up for a national donor registry and will he commit to the strongest possible system of safety for organs and tissue?