Judy Wasylycia-Leis

[Hazardous Products, November 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has done no such thing. The minister has created chaos at the retail level and he has refused to deal with poisonous substances in terms of phthalates, lead and cadmium.

Will the minister finally admit that he was wrong? Will he take steps to ensure that children's safety is put first? Will the minister regulate any products that have dangerously high levels of phthalates, lead and cadmium? Will the minister do everything to ensure that children are not exposed to dangerous substances that cause neurological damage? Will the minister do it now?

[Hazardous Products, November 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, last year the health minister said that Canadians concerned about toxic toys were misinformed. The minister even voted against a bill by the member for Acadie—Bathurst to label toys containing phthalates. Now the minister finally issues a warning, but there is no list of the hazardous products and we cannot even get through on his 1-800 number.

What is the minister doing to resolve this retail nightmare? Will the minister at least agree to the labelling of toxic toys?

[Tobacco Act, November 16th, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-42, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 27 and 28 on page 1 with the following:

“peared on the facility on June 3, 1998.”

Mr. Speaker, I very pleased to have the opportunity to address Bill C-42 at report stage and to discuss the amendment to the amended bill before us.

It is important for the record to say that the speed with which the bill is being put through the various stages of the legislative process is remarkable. The opportunities for public participation have been limited and the significance with which amendments have been treated is of deep concern to all of us.

Bill C-42 waters down, weakens or dilutes many of the provisions under Bill C-71 passed by the House in April 1997. Its tobacco sponsorship restrictions would have come into effect on October 1 of this year but for the amendments to Bill C-42 before us today.

We have been concerned throughout the process and will continue to register concerns about the dilution of the tobacco sponsorship restrictions which creates more opportunities for young people to be influenced by tobacco advertising, by lifestyle advertising, as opposed to the kind of leadership we expect the government to offer in terms of being as proactive as possible in ensuring that young people are not influenced in any way to take up smoking.

My amendment deals with a very significant issue in the package before members this morning. It should be noted that during committee stage members of the government on the health committee included a weakening amendment that they did not explain at all. The original bill grandparented sponsored permanent facilities, for example a theatre having tobacco signs, as of the date of first reading of the bill. The amendment has the grandparenting effective as of the date the bill receives royal assent.

It is very clear from this change that the government is prepared to allow newly sponsored permanent facilities which engage in tobacco advertising between June 3, 1998, when the bill was first introduced to the House, and the time when the bill gets royal assent—there is no specific date for the royal assent; no one can be assured of just how fast it will happen—to sponsor advertising and the display of tobacco promotions for five years.

It is a significant development. It slipped through committee. There was no justification. There was no explanation. It is our firm belief that as a minimum the government should be changing the bill back to the original intention so that the date of June 3, 1998 comes into effect. This would at least be a minimal step toward restricting the amount of tobacco sponsorship advertising that is taking place. It would also be a tiny step toward limiting the exposure of young people to lifestyle advertising.

We have tried through every way possible to convince the government to accept some amendments that would take us back to the original intentions of Bill C-21, which is about protecting the health of Canadians. We have reacted strongly and consistently to the amendments before us today which put the whole thing off and allows for a greater period of unfettered advertising by tobacco companies at events attended very heavily by young people who are influenced greatly by the advertising that takes place.

In conjunction with the amendment we put forward it is important to remind all members of the House that we are dealing with a very grave and growing public health problem. Although I do not need to remind members, I will remind them that we are dealing with at least 40,000 deaths per year, if not more, as a result of tobacco related illnesses. We know that every year 250,000 young people get hooked on smoking. We also know that 85% of adults today who smoke are addicted because they started before the age of 18. We know that there is a high rate of smoking among young people between the ages of 15 and 19.

We know we have a serious problem which will lead to enormous health costs down the road. Yet on every occasion the government has taken the most feeble, cautionary approach possible. It is an approach which flies in the face of everything we know about the seriousness of the issue. It also flies in the face of what other jurisdictions are doing.

It is shameful that the government is so unwilling to act and show political courage to deal head on with the tobacco industry at a time when jurisdictions like British Columbia are prepared to take serious steps toward making the tobacco industry accountable for the damage it has caused among young people.

It is time for the government to show leadership. Whether we are talking about Bill C-42 and the attempts by the government to dilute and weaken the Tobacco Act; whether we are talking about resistance to Bill S-13, the Tobacco Industry Responsibility Act; or whether we are talking about the government's refusal to expend money it promised in the last election for tobacco prevention and education among young people, we must keep in mind that the government promised $100 million over five years. It has spent about 2% of that and has shown no sign of moving rapidly and quickly to put in place the kinds of programs which actually deter young people from getting started and becoming hooked on cigarettes.

Our concern is for the government to show leadership and not to run away and hide from the serious issues before us. We would urge the government and all members to support our amendment so that Bill C-42 is not diluted any further and the true intentions of Bill C-71, the Tobacco Act, are adhered to and held up as a starting point for Canadians.

We implore the government to continue working with parliament and the many health organizations that want stronger tobacco laws for the sake of our health and for the sake of our kids.

[Health Care, November 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health has acknowledged that no professional group has borne the brunt of health care restructuring more than Canada's nurses. Through an era of Liberal cuts nurses have held our system together. They are overworked, stressed, burned out and worried about the quality of patient care.

We need federal action now and it has to be more than the reannouncement of a nursing co-ordinator position in Health Canada.

What is the minister doing to address this current crisis in our health care system and what is he doing to avert a potentially devastating shortage of nurses for the new millennium?

[Health, November 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health does a great disservice to Canadians by not acknowledging their concerns and by not acting now to clear the air.

With over 70% of the drug approval process paid for by the drug industry itself and with growing allegations of industry lobbyists taking precedence over the public interest, there is a serious concern before the minister today.

Why will the minister not show some leadership, get his own house in order and launch an immediate independent inquiry into the health protection branch?

[Health, November 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, now that the first round of consultations on the so-called health protection branch renewal is over, the Minister of Health should be acutely aware of the lack of confidence and trust that Canadians have in our health protection system.

The sworn testimony of scientists on the matter of bovine growth hormones only serves to further darken the cloud of suspicion hanging over the health protection branch.

To restore confidence in this discredited branch will the Minister of Health now do the right thing and launch a full independent inquiry into the health protection branch?

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, October 27th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on Bill C-43.

I must say that a lot of us who are able to speak on the bill today feel very privileged. Many others will not be able to speak because of the heavy-handed measure by this government of bringing in closure. Why is it that every time a major public policy issue is before the House, this government rushes to bring in the hammer, to bring in the hook, to bring in the heavy-handed measure of closure?

My time in this chamber has been relatively brief. I have been a member for one and a half years, since the 1997 election. It seems to me that the dominant method by which this government chooses to operate is the undemocratic approach of bringing in closure whenever the debate gets difficult. Whenever there is a need for us to discuss in serious terms, to share ideas, this government cuts off debate and denies us that opportunity.

One of the first pieces of legislation we had to deal with was Bill C-2, the changes to the Canada pension plan, a bill of serious importance for Canadians. It was a matter that should have been debated at length in the House but it was cut short by the heavy-handed measure of closure.

It is with gratitude that I just made it under the wire. The clock will strike in another hour and this debate will end. There will be no more opportunity for debate in principle on this very important piece of legislation. I want to echo the sentiments of many in this chamber today and express dismay at this heavy-handed approach by the Liberal Government of Canada.

I want to be very clear, as many of my colleagues have been, about our opposition to Bill C-43. Our opposition is to a piece of legislation that enables this government to convert Revenue Canada from a government department into an arm's length, special operating agency. In essence, as so many have said in this House, it is the privatization of a large component and a major function of government. This proposed agency is probably the largest privatization project of this government to date.

Like many in this chamber, I have searched in vain for substantive reasons for the bill before us today. We have heard time and time again from Liberals in this chamber today and previously that this bill is another important initiative on the part of the Liberal government to move in the direction of efficiency and cost effectiveness.

I researched and read as much as I could on this whole issue and I found very little support for those arguments of efficiency and cost effectiveness. In fact most of the information suggests the opposite, that this attempt to remove the operation of taxation and tax collection from government to an operating agency one step removed from government is in fact a more cumbersome, time consuming and costly process than what is presently in place.

We have heard from professionals in the field, from provincial governments, from academics, from chartered accountants, from businesses and from trade unionists very actively involved in this issue. These individuals and organizations have said almost with one voice that there appears to be no valid business case for an independent agency. Many have even gone a step further and said that the proposed Canadian customs and revenue agency is an idea in search of a rationale and one has not been found.

If it is not based on sound public policy, if it is not based on the goal we all share of making something better, of making changes to improve the situation, then what are the motives of this government? The answer can only be found in this government's never ending pursuit of privatization, of downsizing the public sector, of diminishing the role of government in areas historically and traditionally fundamental to the very notion of what government is all about and what government should be there for.

My goodness, it seems to me that in the area of tax collection we are talking about something that has been seen as the prerogative of the state, as an important role of government historically and traditionally in this country and around the world. Yet here we have a proposal, an idea looking for a rationale, that abandons this important public sector role and responsibility. By stealth this government abandons this role and responsibility to the private sector.

I say that the answer must be found in this ideological pursuit of privatization, offloading, deregulation, cutbacks and outsourcing. One only has to look at what has happened under this government over the last number of years to put it all together and come to that conclusion.

One only has to look at what this government has done every step of the way to dismantle social programs, to privatize important public services and to cut back on every area possible in order to ensure that the actors in the marketplace are able to operate on an unfettered basis.

It is not a stretch to suggest that the government is very much interested in this philosophy that the least government is the best government instead of looking at what makes the most sense for government to be involved in, when is it important to have strong regulatory approach to a policy area, when is it important to value the work of our public employees, and when is it important to ensure that we maintain within the public domain certain functions in order to ensure that all people in this country are served to the best of our ability.

Many in Canada have commented on the government's agenda. I quote from a paragraph written by Daniel Drache and Meric Gertler:

No area of government policy has been spared. Across a broad front that includes not only trade but regional development, tax and fiscal polices, old age pensions, family allowance, labour market policy, social income programs, and collective bargaining, the government moved persistently and systematically to reshape the institutional and legislative character of Canada. Its strategy is to water down Canadian redistributional programs so as to make them equivalent to the (American) lowest common denominator, and to cut the direct and indirect labour costs to business.

Is that not what we are dealing with? Is that not what is really behind it all? Is that not why so many Canadians are concerned?

I may not be able to convince the government to change that mad pursuit of privatization and deregulation but I hope that it would at least listen to the words of the employees who are impacted by this decision and recognize the kind of hurt and worry it is extending to 40,000 employees in this area, in particular to the large number of citizens in Winnipeg who are affected directly by this decision and whose voice ought to be taken into consideration by this government.

[Health, October 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, private health care is a booming business in Canada. In this region alone, private health care businesses are on the rise for the second year in a row. This rise in private health care is a sure sign that this government's deep cuts to transfer payments for health care are creating two systems of health care in Canada, one for the wealthy and one for everyone else.

Will the health minister admit that health care cuts are leading us down the road to two tier American style health care?

[Health Protection Branch, October 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, testimony given today under oath by Health Canada scientists paints a horrifying picture of what is happening right now in the health protection branch.

They are talking about gag orders and intimidation under this minister and under this government.

Does the minister deny that these serious events occurred and, if not, how does he respond to these very serious allegations?

Will he lift the gag order? Will he let the scientists do their work?

[Health, October 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the finance minister.

Last week in Toronto, 17 of 19 emergency rooms were turning patients away. Today in Ottawa paramedics warned that overloaded hospitals are putting patients at risk. One nurse said the emergency department is like the canary in the mine, the first place you see the problems from funding cuts.

The finance minister would not commit to health care funds at the finance committee last week. Will the minister put $2.5 billion in transfers for health care in the coming budget before any more lives are put at risk?