Judy Wasylycia-Leis

[Health Care, April 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it has now been over 100 hours since the chiefs of two first nations in northern Ontario have been fasting at the Sioux Lookout Zone Hospital in a desperate attempt to get the federal government and the minister to address a very critical health care situation. About 16,000 residents of northern Ontario depend on this hospital that now has no emergency or obstetrics services.

Will the Minister of Health now accept responsibility for this crisis? Will he begin immediately to restore physician and nursing services that operate out of the Sioux Lookout Zone Hospital? Will he at least agree to meet today with those who are fasting in a desperate move to get attention and resolution to this critical health care problem?

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 13th, 1999]

What have been the federal government's activities in the area of hepatitis B vaccination, specifically: ( a ) information learned by Health Protection Branch regulators from the decision by France to suspend the administration of the hepatitis B vaccination; ( b ) actions taken by Health Canada to assess safety of the vaccination B product and, in particular, to survey for adverse reactions over and above voluntary reporting; ( c ) information requested and received from international bodies such as the World Health Organization about the safety of the hepatitis B vaccination; ( d ) reassessment of existing evidence in the new drug submission for the hepatitis B vaccination previously assessed; and ( e ) evidence that plasma was not involved in any part of the manufacturing of the hepatitis B vaccination?

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 23rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the motion before us is a motion to speed up the process around the approval for the most undemocratic legislation we have ever seen. We are talking about closure.

Every incident I have referred to has do with the way in which the government wields the heavy hand, cuts off debate, makes decisions outside parliament and denies the fundamental tenets of a democratic society. I am right on topic.

Let me move toward the actual anti-democratic nature of the legislation around which the motion is trying to speed up the process with regard to Bill C-76, the back to work legislation. Why in the world did the government feel compelled to go the route of fundamentally bypassing the democratic collective bargaining process and bringing in this heavy handed back to work legislation?

It is absolutely shameful the government had to resort to such tactics when there were many other options which the government with a bit of courage, leadership and conviction could have used to ensure that the concerns of workers, farmers and the public service were all addressed. Canadians could then feel there was some framework of harmony and consensus at play and the tools in place by which they would have the ability to take on the future with all the rapid technological change and global forces at work in this country and around the world.

We are talking today about the most anti-democratic process to bring in and to force the most anti-democratic legislation imaginable.

I do not think many Canadians will take solace in the government's suggestion that this heavy handed legislation was the only solution to the problem. Canadians know full well that the process of collective bargaining involving members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada was not respected. They know full well that legitimate issues and demands were being raised by alliance workers that were not taken into account.

I would like to take a couple of minutes to read a few letters I received today in my office in Winnipeg and some letters I received over the course of the last couple of months while public service alliance workers have been trying to convince the government of the need to deal with their grievances and, in particular, to deal with the whole question of inequity and discrimination in the regional rates of pay.

I quote from a letter by Alice, sent to me today at my office. She wrote:

I thought that being a federal employee would entitle me to equal treatment like everyone else that works for the government, but I guess (the President of the Treasury Board) doesn't see it that way. This is discrimination with a capital D . Our prime minister does nothing to help us. I feel we have no rights as Canadian citizens.

Alice does not feel she has any rights as a Canadian citizen. We do not feel we have any rights as members of parliament. Is there any sign of people feeling like they are able to use their full rights as citizens of the country?

Let me go on and read from Leona who wrote:

Dear Judy:

I am writing in protest to being legislated back to work by the federal government. I can't believe that our Prime Minister condones (the President of the Treasury Board's) behaviour towards the blue collar workers of Canada. (The Prime Minister) openly shows his discrimination, by not stepping in to stop (the President of the Treasury Board) and the treasury board from once again sending us back to work without a proper raise.

Let me quote from Mike who wrote to me today:

I am an employee of the Federal Government of Canada and a member of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. As an employee represented by Public Service Alliance of Canada-Table 2 I urge you to intercede on our behalf—

We are doing that today. We are trying to intercede on behalf of workers who are members of the public service alliance and part of the table two negotiations seeking to have their concerns heard and taken seriously.

It is absolutely unnecessary and unexplainable. It takes the words right out of my mouth to try to figure out why the government felt it had to resort to back to work legislation when there were options before it, when it was a matter of respecting the rights of workers and respecting the role that the labour movement plays in the country.

I urge members today to consider their actions and to remember people like Stanley Knowles who would have been appalled by the kind of anti-democratic motion put before the House today. I ask members to remember the contribution of the labour movement throughout the history of the country in seeking a more just and equitable society. I ask members to remember the words that when one among us suffers we all suffer. When we work to ensure the collective good and find co-operative solutions, therein lies our hope for a secure, healthy and peaceful future.

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 23rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, a minute ago I heard the member for Ottawa West—Nepean suggest the reason it had been hard to keep members in the House was that there were many committees going on. I want the member and all others members on the Liberal benches to know that many of us here would like to be in committee as we speak but we are forced to be in this place because of the unilateral, arbitrary and undemocratic actions of the government. If the government could see the light and realize that if it allowed democracy to pursue its natural course, we could all get the work of this place done efficiently and effectively.

I will try to wrap up the first part of my speech pertaining to closure, this arbitrary move on the part of the government, by referencing a couple of other incidents and events flowing from this place.

It should come as no surprise to members opposite that when it comes to serious matters like detailed analysis of the budget committees are barely given an opportunity for active scrutiny. The decisions are made outside this place. That is an undemocratic practice. When it comes to big decisions of vital importance to the country and to the world, especially when it comes to questions pertaining to peacekeeping troops being sent into wartorn countries, as a matter of course this place is consulted after the fact.

The government may allow for a few hours to be spent on a take note debate, but when it comes to final decisions around whether or not troops will be sent into an international scene of conflict the government makes those decisions before parliament has had a chance to have any involvement or say on those issues.

Let me mention another example having to do with the incident we all had to deal with over the last year. Scientists in the health protection branch were being threatened, intimidated and placed under gag orders because they chose to speak up and inform Canadians about the possible harmful effects of something being added to our milk. In that case we were talking about bovine growth hormone. It is a very clear example of what has happened in the country and the kind of arrogance that is so pervasive with the Liberals across the way.

It means that civil servants who are doing their jobs are threatened, intimidated and made to shut up so that the government does not have to deal with the hard facts and take those concerns into account. There are numerous more examples of how undemocratic the government has become.

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 23rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, what we are dealing with is deep-felt shame and embarrassment on the part of members of the Liberal government. Otherwise they would not be rising to their feet on points of order and commenting on those who are trying to seek a quorum in this Chamber.

Let us face it, it is an embarrassing moment for Liberal members. It must give them a terrible sense of shame and dishonour to have to sit here and be a part of a process that is denying fundamental basic democratic rights in the House of Commons. They have to be ashamed and embarrassed. They are probably also very ashamed and embarrassed about the legislation behind this motion, Bill C-76, which is an attempt to apply the most undemocratic process to deal with a labour dispute in our country.

Let us keep this in perspective and try to bring some sense to members on the government benches. This is not an isolated incident. This is part of a pattern of governing that is absolutely loathsome and absolutely repulsive for Canadians everywhere. This is just one in a series of examples.

I would like to remind members opposite how often we have had to deal with closure on important legislation, how often we have heard about decisions being made by the government outside parliament, how many times parliamentarians have been bypassed in critical decisions being made for this country and how often bodies without any democratic responsibility and accountability determine the future of this country.

Let us not forget the past week when we asked a simple question about the denial of postal subsidies for religious publications in this country. We were told that was part of the WTO, the World Trade Organization, reaching its tentacles into something as basic as the right of this country to produce religious publications that reflect the values of this country.

Let us not forget that if it had not been for the vigorous efforts on the part of non-governmental organizations, justice coalitions everywhere across this country and some members of parliament, we would not have had the multilateral agreement on investment before this Chamber for discussion. It would have proceeded in secret and arbitrarily. It would have become a fait accompli, causing much harm and destruction to the future of the country, if people had not called the government to task and demanded some sense of democratic process.

Let us also look at the way in which members of parliament have been raising their concerns over the last while and pointing out how much parliament is bypassed on a day to day basis.

My colleague, the member from Kamloops, was very clear last week in the House when he said that the government is working very hard to make all of us into political eunuchs. It is attempting at every step of the way to deny us the opportunity to exercise our democratic rights and to represent the people who elected us to this Chamber.

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 23rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am glad I now have the attention of members opposite. I will carry on from where I left off, with my observations as a new member of parliament less than two years ago. I held out great hope that democracy would be a model for this country and for this parliament.

Instead I saw two things in very short order. First I saw a government that was more right wing and regressive than the previous Brian Mulroney Conservative government had been, absolutely and without question. The second thing I noticed was a government of unprecedented arrogance. It is unbelievable that any time an issue has become difficult or the debate has become complex this government has resorted to the undemocratic measures of closure, of speed-up motions as we have today, of killing parliamentary debate and of the chance for public input.

After many attempts over the last couple of years by this government to bring in closure and to bring down arbitrary, undemocratic measures, today we have before us a mean-spirited motion. It is an absolute abuse of power. What else can we call this attempt on the part of the government to fast track and limit debate on some very serious legislation pertaining to forcing workers back to work? It can only be described in terms of abusing power, of violating the very basic tenets of any democratic society.

Why in the world did this government feel it had to bring a heavy sledgehammer into this Chamber on an issue that is so fundamentally critical in terms of our history as a country and our traditions in terms of democracy?

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 23rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I regret that we are engaged in this debate, period. Let us be clear about what is before the House today. We have before us the most anti-democratic motion possible by any government anywhere.

Yesterday we had introduced in the House the most anti-democratic legislation imaginable for a democracy anywhere. Today we have the double whammy, an anti-democratic process on top of anti-democratic legislation.

The purpose for the debate this afternoon is to come to grips with this arbitrary, heavy handed approach by the Liberal government. It is yet another example of how arrogant this government has become.

Less than two years ago, when many of us were elected for the first time to this Chamber, we were given an opportunity to see democracy at work. We held out great hope that the rights of every individual member and the views of every Canadian would be heard and heard well. Lo and behold, that hope was short-lived for many of us.

I was elected in June 1997 and one of the very first measures of this government was to impose closure on Bill C-2, the bill to amend the Pension Act. Just when it became clear that this government was embarking on major changes that would have serious and widespread ramifications for Canadians everywhere, just when—

[Petitions, March 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present another petition from a large group of Canadians who are very concerned about the state of our health care system today.

The petitioners call upon the government to act as quickly as possible to ensure that the Canada Health Act is upheld, strengthened and enhanced. The petitioners also call upon the government to respect the principles of accessibility, universality, portability, comprehensive coverage and public administration.

They call upon the government to entrench those principles not only in terms of the immediate needs within our hospitals and medical system but to use those principles to expand our health care system to cover the whole range of health care needs.

[Health, March 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this is my point. The government has not set standards for the reuse of disposable medical devices. As a result, patients are at risk. We know that from a study that goes back to 1994. We know that the Canadian Health Care Association has called for national standards. All we are getting is the minister saying that he is going to study the matter and consider national standards.

We want to know today if this government is prepared to stand and say that national standards will be implemented immediately and that patients will not be put at any unnecessary risk.

[Health, March 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, for almost five years this government has known that the reuse of disposable medical devices is potentially dangerous.

For almost five years this government has known that reused disposable devices like catheters and tubes going into stomachs and intestines can cause the transmission of disease and can even break down in the patient's body. For five years this government has known that hospitals want this government to act and they want national standards.

Why did this government, when it had a choice to act or do nothing, choose to do nothing and put patients at risk?