Judy Wasylycia-Leis

[Petitions, March 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 36, I am pleased to table a petition. This petition is signed by residents of my riding, by residents of Winnipeg and by residents of Thunder Bay, Ontario.

The petitioners are very concerned about the multilateral agreement on investment. They are very worried that Canada is currently negotiating an agreement which will threaten the very notion of Canadian unity, sovereignty, our cultural identity and our health care system.

The petitioners are worried that this is not an investment deal but a global constitution for corporations and that it will create the same rights for foreign owned corporations as for Canadian citizens.

The petitioners call upon this government to reject the current framework for the MAI and to proceed on a much more sensitive and humane basis.

[Taxation, March 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to go into more detail about the question I raised in this House on March 10 regarding home care. I am hoping that this forum will finally result in some answers from the Liberals and some assurances that their government is standing up for medicare.

There is a clear sense of urgency about the issue of health care and about the need for home care. There is not a Canadian anywhere who has not experienced personally and directly problems stemming from the inadequacies of our health care system or who does not know someone who has experienced some horrible situation in our health care system. They know we have a health care crisis.

They want this government to provide more than words and more than election promises. They are desperately looking for federal leadership, for a role by this government to preserve and strengthen medicare. They do not want anything to do with the kind of leadership, if we can call it that, being offered by the Reform Party. They reject totally the Reform policy, articulated so clearly yesterday, to establish a parallel private, for profit two tier health care system. They reject absolutely that kind of system. They want to see this government act now and act quickly to prevent that kind of idea from gaining any ground.

Canadians deeply care about medicare. They want to see medicare preserved and strengthened. They believe in a universally accessible, publicly administered, single payer health care system. They know it requires certain things on the part of this government. It requires a reversal of the trend that we have seen over the last few years of government offloading and cutbacks. They know it requires a commitment to reinvest in health care, especially at a time of budgetary surplus. They know it requires new and innovative directions to health care like home care.

I submit to this government but specifically to the Minister of Health that his argument that we need more time to study home care before this government is prepared to act is completely misplaced and a fallacious argument. We have no shortage of studies, experience and examples about home care, how it can work and the kind of benefits it will achieve. What we need is action now. We need money on the table.

There are several reasons why home care is so critical right now. It will help to address the current crisis in our hospital system because if we do not have home care, people stay longer in hospitals. We know it is a cost effective method. We know that it is a responsible public policy responding to an aging population. We know it will take pressure off the families and particularly women who are left with the primary care of parents and aging relatives. We know it will stop the emergence of privatization in the home care field and we know that it will create jobs and create a boom for our economy.

In conclusion, it is absolutely clear that the best health system in the world did not just create itself. It took leadership and vision. We need that leadership and vision from the Liberal government now to preserve health care, to strengthen medicare and ensure that we have a national home care plan as soon as possible.

[Taxation, March 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to add my comments to the record regarding this very important motion by my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Transcona. It was a privilege to second this motion.

We are often preoccupied in this House dealing with very serious problems in our society, the high unemployment of young people, the lack of opportunities for our youth to use their talents to their fullest, the burden on families, parents and communities to address the recreational needs of young people. Clearly if we in this House intend to find meaningful solutions to the problems of unemployment among young people, to the problems of a sense of feeling hopeless and helpless, to the problems of pursuing less than desirable activities in the areas of delinquency and crime and membership in gangs, we have to provide the services and recognize the needs that will deter young people from undesirable activities.

My riding is probably no different from those of many in this House. It is an area of very high unemployment, very high poverty, with a crying need from parents everywhere for governments to address those issues. It is a cry for help, not for charity, not for handouts but a cry for parents to help themselves deal with the concerns they are facing on a daily basis.

My community is probably not unlike those of many others in this Chamber in terms of the lack of adequate recreational facilities and supports. It is interesting on every turn that those community centres that were providing opportunities for young people to be involved are being shut down, inadequately resourced, without responsible action taken on the part of any level of government.

My intention today in support of this motion is threefold. First, if we are serious about the issues that we grapple with on a daily basis then surely as members of the federal Parliament putting pressure on the government we can effect some changes at the fiscal level in our taxation system that will be a meaningful contribution to the debate.

The second purpose is to say that the federal government also has a role to support community efforts through co-operative financial efforts, through provincial-municipal co-operation in terms of recreational facilities.

There is a centre sitting idle in my community. It used to be the north YM-YWCA in Winnipeg. That organization ran out of the funds it needed to stay open. No level of government was prepared to fill the gap, to find a way to ensure that centre could be reopened. It would have given young people a meaningful place to fulfil their need for leisure recreation and to apply their talents. It was a project, an idea and a need that was not met by the federal-provincial infrastructure program.

We in this House tend to raise our voices about problems with young people involved in crime and gangs. Surely the federal government has a role to work, to listen and to address those needs. It can work hand in hand with provincial and municipal governments to find ways to open facilities that mean something to young people, not to close them. They can find ways to put programs in place which truly address the wishes and desires of our young people.

My hope today is for us to think in terms of the needs of families and parents who deal daily with the dilemma of trying to ensure their children are occupied and are busy enjoying life, that they are not lured on to streets into undesirable activities. We in Parliament can play a real role.

The motion proposed by the member for Winnipeg—Transcona is a very good place to start. It will help to deal with the tremendous burden families have of trying to find the necessary funds for their kids to participate in often costly recreational activities. Often the costs are beyond the reach of many parents. Certainly many parents in my own constituency do not have the economic wherewithal to pay for hockey equipment, to pay the fees, to drive their kids to and from activities. They must juggle their demands as workers with the need to be very caring and attentive parents.

It is a tremendous need which needs to be addressed. This is a good place to start. I ask all members to give serious consideration to supporting this motion.

[Reform Party Of Canada, March 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Reform members outlined their approach to health care.

They want an Americanized, privatized two tier health care system. They want more competition in health care. They want to amend the Canada Health Act to set up a parallel private system, a separate system for the rich and another system for the poor.

The Reform member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca even admitted, is it unequal? Yes. Does the Reform Party care? No.

Canadians believe their right to life and treatment for illness and injuries should not be based on income. Canadians should not become guinea pigs for Reform's irresponsible health theories playing around with Canadian lives to put in place a dangerous system in which low and middle income Canadians unnecessarily suffer and die.

We already have a crisis in our health care system. We need reinvestment to strengthen that system. Why should we require people to sell their homes or go bankrupt to pay for necessary medical treatment? We say no to Reform's ill health plan. We say yes to medicare.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, March 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, we are proposing a motion this afternoon which we believe warrants the serious attention of the House and makes a very serious proposition to all members for support consistent with the statement of the Minister of Health and consistent with the call of government Liberal members who at their recent convention made a very strong plea for the government to put in place a mechanism to assess the adequacies of cash transfer payments for health care systems.

Today we offer a motion in the spirit of constructive suggestion. It is a motion that is made in the spirit of co-operation and which deserves the support of each and every one in the House.

It is interesting that the amendment coincides in spirit and in intent with the resolutions adopted at the previous Liberal convention. I make a plea to members across the way to assess very carefully the motion before them and to look at it as something that will be absolutely consistent with the wishes of the members of their party.

The motion is very clear. It calls on the government to report on an official basis annually to parliament about the adequacy of the way in which we finance health care.

It provides a way for parliamentarians and all Canadians to have a say in the future of medicare and to have the means by which they can assess the effectiveness of government programs which uphold this most important national program, our most treasured national institution.

I do not need to tell the House that health care has been a matter of very heated and intense debate in the Chamber. The discussion in the House has evolved from the concerns about the extent of the health care crisis in Canada. It has flowed from questions about the appropriate level of federal support. It has arisen from concerns about the degree to which our health care system is being privatized. It has emerged from a deep commitment by all involved Canadians everywhere to medicare. It is not simply an issue of partisan debate. Concerns being raised cross party lines in the Chamber and as we saw on the weekend are very much alive and well in the Liberal Party of Canada.

Concerns have been raised by members on the Liberal side of the House. By all accounts we know there is a battle within the government, that there is a division within cabinet, around the best approach for supporting health care.

The health minister's recent public plea for support to back up his efforts at the cabinet table for more dollars for health care has to be one of the most significant developments in parliament over the past six months. It is certainly an unusual position to be taken by a member of government. It speaks to the seriousness of the issues at hand.

The clear debate that is going on among members of the Liberal government, the appeal from members at the recent Liberal convention and the call for action from many in the House arise from several very critical developments.

First, and I need remind no one in the Chamber about these developments, there has been a growing body of incidents about hardship, suffering and even death directly related to the level of funding of our health care systems. Those incidents have given us all a sense of urgency to act now before it is too late.

Second, it is very clear from the outpourings of Canadians and from the polls that have been taken of public opinion that Canadians remain committed to a single payer, universally accessible, publicly administered health care system. They understand clearly the need for federal funding, for national standards and for government leadership. Canadians when probed through public polling techniques agreed that any federal budgetary surplus should go first and foremost to federal cash transfer payments for health care. This shows a tremendous level of sophistication and an unwavering commitment to medicare.

Third, the debate before us today needs to be dealt with on an urgent basis because each and every province has called with one voice for the federal government to begin a process of reinvestment in health cash transfers. Each and every province is trying to adjust almost overnight to massive reductions in federal transfers, to the biggest bite in the history of medicare taken out of health care financing by the federal Liberal government. They are attempting with all their remaining funds and creative abilities to reform their health care systems to achieve savings commensurate with the federal cuts.

It is the contention of every province and the two territories and certainly the belief of many in the House that federal cash transfers have dropped to unacceptably low levels. There is a vacuum of leadership at the federal level. It rings hollow for the federal government to claim that the cancelled cut of $1.5 billion is new money.

There is a clear understanding about the dramatic shift in federal support from the days of 50:50 cost sharing to the present day where federal support using full tax points and cash transfers is down to 20% at the most. If one looked only at the cash element of the financing system, federal participation is down to between 10% and 15%.

All Canadians, provincial governments included, recognize the need to shift our health care system from one that is institutional based and illness focused to one that is based on prevention, wellness and which is community delivered.

That is our goal. That is why we are here today. We are here to find a way to help this government ensure that we can preserve medicare, reform it in terms of making it better and not just achieving a fiscal bottom line and to provide a measure of accountability involving Canadians in the whole process.

The motion before this House is to help the health minister, to help the Liberal government, come to grips with this debate and these concerns before everyone, to make decisions based on the facts. This motion gives the government a tool to assess the adequacy of federal transfers. It gives the Minister of Health a mechanism to achieve his plea for support from Canadians. It gives Parliament a meaningful role and it gives the public a say in this whole process.

In conclusion, I would ask all members to consider this motion as something constructive and positive in the debate and I hope it is adopted.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, March 23rd, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-28, in Clause 285.1, be amended by adding after line 13 on page 454 the following:

“(3) Section 15 of the Federal Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):

(3.1) The Minister of Health shall table in the House of Commons, in September of each year commencing in the year 1998 and ending in the year 2003, a report assessing the adequacy of the cash portion of the total entitlement referred to in subsection (3) to sustain the principles of the Canada Health Act, and where the House of Commons is not sitting in September of that year, the Minister of Health shall table the report in the month in which the House next sits.”

Madam Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following amendment to the motion. I move:

That the words “of health” be inserted after the words “the minister” wherever those appear in Motion No. 3 of Bill C-28.

[Health, March 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Health.

If the Minister of Health is already doing what Liberal delegates called for this weekend and is establishing a process to measure the quality of health care in Canada, why will he not agree to a formal process as proposed in our amendment to ensure that there is an annual medicare check-up and that there is a way for members of Parliament and all Canadians to participate in that process and to be assured that medicare is on solid footing?

[Health, March 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Health is really sincere that health care is one of the key priorities for his government, then surely he can agree to a simple mechanism that would allow him and his government to report back to Parliament about the adequacy of cash transfer payments for health care and ensure that we have a mechanism for compliance to the principles of medicare.

Now that the minister has had a couple of minutes to compare his party resolution with our amendment, would he agree today here and now to support this mechanism?

[Health, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, evidence released today shows Monsanto, with its Liberal aides turned lobbyists, is behind a major campaign to get bovine growth hormone approved in the milk we drink.

The health minister rejected his own scientists' concerns and set up more review panels while including Monsanto on a Canadian delegation overseas that voted against further review of the rBST.

Will the minister let his own scientists do their jobs or will he let Monsanto dictate the health protection agenda for the country?

[Petitions, March 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and privileged to be able to present a petition under Standing Order 36 on behalf of my constituents. The petitioners are all residents of my constituency of Winnipeg North Centre.

The petitioners express their deep concern about the multilateral agreement on investment. They are concerned about the process and the secrecy surrounding the development of this agreement. They are also concerned with the substance of the agreement and believe that it is fundamentally flawed in that it seeks to protect the rights of investors without seeking similar protection for workers through binding core labour standards.

I want to indicate that the petitioners call upon this government to reject the multilateral agreement on investment and to put in place responsible international policies.