Larry Bagnell

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I do not necessarily agree with the member that the only way of making changes is incremental or not making them at all. The points we must consider are the various ramifications on the other elements of the system when a particular change is made. For example, if a new part for a car is invented, it is related to the workings of the rest of the car and it has to fit in. When we make a change, whether it is for good or bad, there are also changes made one by one on certain other things. I am hopeful that members of Parliament will give careful consideration to the effects and ramifications on the other parts of the system when they make such changes.

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the excellent and thoughtful question. My understanding though is in relation to the suggestions from the member for LaSalle—Émard and as I said at the beginning, I am delighted we are discussing Liberal suggestions.

The six suggestions that came out were put forward to be discussed at further length. They were ideas that had come forward from all sides of the House, but they were not the final, cast in stone decisions of these serious matters.

As the member from Halifax West said, when we are dealing with procedures, some that have been in place for 800 years, we must be careful to ensure what would work as opposed to in one afternoon's discussion change them. I am not opposed to a discussion to look at all the ramifications and a committee analysis to see where it leads.

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to congratulate my colleague from Halifax West. I agree with a lot of the things he said. It was an excellent submission, especially the point about the 800 years in developing a parliamentary procedure and that we should be careful in what changes we make.

I would like to muse on the strategy the opposition parties have come up with for opposition days this fall. Last week we debated a motion from the Alliance when members explained they would like to debate “a new idea” from the member for LaSalle—Émard. Rather than debate one of their own ideas, they wanted to debate another Liberal new idea. Today we see that Bloc members once again have made a great point all day that they would like to debate “another new idea” of the Liberals, an idea from the member for LaSalle—Émard.

Most of the motions coming from a majority government are Liberal ideas which we promote and debate, but now the opposition has decided to give their days back. In the time that they have to promote their ideas of how they will be a government in waiting, we also get to debate new Liberal ideas. It is devastating.

In the spirit of collegiality I encourage my cher collègues to keep coming up with good ideas so that the opposition can press forward with this strategy right to the bitter end.

I would like to talk about today's motion but first I will read it into the record.

The motion reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, government appointments of ambassadors, consuls general and heads of regulatory bodies and Crown corporations should automatically be referred to the appropriate committee of the House of Commons for consideration, and that the relevant Standing Orders of the House of Commons should be amended accordingly.

On December 5, 1984, the special committee on the reform of the House of Commons, the McGrath committee, was appointed to examine the powers, procedures, practices, organizations and facilities of the House of Commons. Among the recommendations it ultimately came up with was that committees should be authorized to review non-judicial order in council appointments or in some cases nominations for appointment.

As a result, under Standing Orders 110 and 111 of the House of Commons, non-judicial order in council appointments are automatically referred to the appropriate standing committee within five days for consideration. The committee may call the nominee or appointee before it during the subsequent 30-day period to review his or her qualifications for the post. The committee may report recommendations to the House, but in keeping with the recommendations of the McGrath committee it does not have the power to confirm or reject the appointment.

In essence, the resolution today is confirming that procedure and reinforcing it. I do not have a problem with that. That is confirmed in a statement made on February 19, 2002, by the member for Mercier:

In the case of any political appointment, the committee may ask to give its approval regarding the experience and expertise of the appointee to perform the duties of his job.

This is an article from the Canadian Press .

I have no problem in supporting the motion and the system that basically is in place.

The Standing Orders currently allow for a review of order in council appointments. Since 1994 there have been over 4,300 such appointments and the committee has rarely used this power except when there was significant publicity. I would like to commend the former members of Parliament for using this power judiciously, for not having the types of circuses that occasionally occur in American congressional hearings that go on and on, and which do not serve the purposes that a rational review is meant to accomplish.

While we are talking about appointments, I want to make a clarification on another bill we are reviewing, Bill C-2. There was an issue related to appointments to a board in that particular bill. One of the members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition was concerned that there might be problems with these government appointments because of the significant major powers of this board.

The member may have had some bad experiences in the past related to this and so has concerns. For clarification, and I said this on CBC radio last night as well, this particular board has only seven members and only one is appointed by the minister free and clear. The rest are nominated by other organizations. That may be a generic debate related to boards totally appointed by the Government of Canada. In this particular case it is not relevant because only one in seven of the members is appointed by the government.

A number of members from all the parties today have talked about various aspects of government reform that have been discussed in the House. I want to talk about private members' bills because there are a number of members who have been concerned about various aspects of it. I probably have a different view than many members. In promoting private members' business and making it more successful, we must increase the respect that parliamentarians have for the people who work in the departments and vice versa. They must also increase their respect for us so that we can get good policy into private members' bills.

If I come up with an idea in an area in which I am not an expert, I go to the experts who have spent careers on that particular area. Some members do this and that is great. The experts have checked out various legislation in other countries that is similar. They have checked the pros and cons, and consulted people. They have done legal checks. They have done all sorts of research on a particular area and if members can say that they have dealt with it, consulted on it and looked at it, then people would give more credibility to the initiatives.

On the other side, the people in the departments too have to respect that every member in the House is a representative of the people. They have been elected by the people to put forward the wishes of the people. When members, no matter which party they are from, come up with ideas or suggestions which more often than not probably emanated from the people, then the people who have designed the bill should be able to answer the questions. They should be able to come up with the reasons why the bill should stay as it is or make appropriate changes.

We need to increase that dialogue. Everyone would have more respect and more confidence in the product that comes out. Perhaps we could have more progress in private members' business.

[Health Care System, October 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about a few things generic to the north and will basically build on what the Secretary of State has said. I want to emphasize the problems that we have in rural areas.

I agree with a lot of the suggestions the minister has related to in serving rural areas because some of our problems are different. One of the main problems is the recruitment of health care professionals for the north, doctors, nurses and other specialists. I have mentioned this in the House and I have worked with the Yukon Medical Association to try to come up with ideas and plans as to how we might deal with that problem.

The Yukon Medical Association believes that all the elements in the Canada Health Act are threatened with the present pressures on health care system in the north. Accessibility, comprehensiveness and universality means something different to a northern resident. If the residents in the north expect to have the same advantage as the majority of Canadians, then some changes in how we train health care professionals and deliver the services have to occur.

The fragile nature of recruitment and retention of medical and other health care professionals puts the system under growing stress. Uncertain financial sustainability, new technologies, increasing expectations of patients and greater difficulty in accessing the specialized medical care outside Yukon add to this stress.

Yukon has a population of 30,000, for which we have about 45 physicians and a number of extended role nurses for carrying on their rural needs. Over the past four years, we have had a turnover of 24 physicians, or more than 50% of our physician population. Fifty per cent of our physicians are over 50 years of age, thus our turnover will continue to be high. Many of the physicians who left were very talented and over the years developed many skills to assist them in the delivery of medical care specific to the needs of the north. We have encountered a special difficulty in replacing these skilled physicians.

The medical needs of the north are unique and the skills and training required to provide for these needs are much broader than in the south. It would indeed be difficult to bring physicians from larger communities in the south and expect them to be comfortable quickly with family or specialty practice in the north. In fact we tend to recruit from a very small pool of physicians, the same physicians who would go to northern Ontario or rural B.C. Yukon does not have the funds to compete with most provincial jurisdictions when recruiting for medical talent. As well, many larger jurisdictions develop their own recruitment initiatives that they hope will give them an edge in attracting physicians to their areas.

Physicians for very small northern communities are especially hard to recruit. Frequently, the population base does not support the number of physicians necessary to allow a high quality of professional and personal life.

Governments have been slow to recognize the measures necessary to support physicians in smaller communities. Flexible primary care delivery models that enhance a physician's ability to both care for his or her patients and himself or herself are necessary. These programs frequently have to be tailored to the individual northern communities.

New technologies include everything from new treatments and cures for cancer, treatments of the unborn baby, brain implants that cure blindness, mechanical hearts, ears, joints, cloning, et cetera.

Patient expectations are creating major pressures on our health care resources. With the increase to direct patient advertising, medical websites, designer drugs and sensationalized medical miracles, physicians and other health care providers are under increasing pressure to try to meet escalating patient demands.

Patients are much more sophisticated about their health care needs and are becoming more directive about their care. They understand to a much greater degree the differences between various medical investigations and treatment options. With this sophistication comes an expectation by many patients that they have access on demand to outside specialists and advanced technologies at the expense of the local government.

Yukon, like most other isolated areas, does not have easy access to a lot of the most basic investigations and treatments, let alone cutting edge technologies. These treatments and investigations will be very expensive, probably far more expensive than most publicly administered health programs will be able to afford, should they be available at all. Should Canadians be allowed to access them in Canada under any circumstances? Will our only chance to access them be by leaving the country? This is what northerners are asking themselves.

Yukon has a small population. This has important implications when it comes to decisions on what health care services and technology should be available in Yukon, particularly if we are concerned about having an efficient and effective health care system. Specifically it means we must consider the population base, skills and support services that are required to acquire and maintain advanced technologies and services such as CT scans, cardiac stress testing, MRI scanners, hip replacement surgery, organ donation programs, full time internists, TB laboratory services, renal dialysis, autologous blood banking, et cetera.

The list can be endless. We can fall into some expensive and inefficient programs in response to pressures from various groups with a special interest in one disease or another. On the other hand, there may be some compelling reasons to provide some of these services in Yukon and avoid the need for travel to outside centres. It is clear that Alberta and British Columbia do not make decisions about their health care system with the needs of Yukon in mind. We must develop a plan to determine which of these services should be publicly available in Yukon, which should be readily accessible referrals outside Yukon, and ensure these services will be available when they are needed.

The medical association has some ideas and options as to what we might do to improve the recruitment in the northern and rural areas. First, it suggests that we form a board of relevant stakeholders to determine the physician resource needs and develop initiatives tailored to the recruitment and retention of needed specialists and family physicians.

Second, as a government we should acknowledge that the recruitment and retention of health care professionals in the north is difficult and offer enhanced funding to allow northern jurisdictions to compete for these skilled health care professionals.

Third, we should support the funding of training for northern specialists and health care practitioners to enhance their skills in training centres to the south. A lot of this training is not in the north and it is expensive to get out to them. These skills can be brought back to the territory.

Fourth, we must recognize that some isolated communities do not have sufficient populations to support the number of physicians necessary to provide a sustainable service. The alternate funding models and tailored primary care delivery models that enhance professional and personal quality of life must be recognized as necessary.

Fifth, we must develop guidelines as to what is affordable and what can be handled and delivered in Yukon.

Sixth, a board should be established to develop a plan to determine which technologies should be publicly available and which should be readily accessible and available by referral outside Yukon.

Seventh, the government in conjunction with the local governments should develop guidelines for reasonable access to advanced technologies with a specific view on how isolated, northern and first nation communities can access them in a timely fashion.

Finally, the local government should negotiate with individual hospitals, the private sector and other provinces for assurances of access to the necessary medical facilities, technologies and specialty services outside Yukon.

Certain things will be affordable and certain things that are not as essential or urgent will have to have a lower priority. One thing that is not negotiable is the length of the waiting lists. These must be cut down when life is at risk. It is intolerable for a person to wait for either a diagnosis or required surgery. I have had people come to me in relation to knee surgery saying it has taken far too long to get on the list and similarly in cases where there has been a diagnosis of a cancer. The longer one waits the more dangerous the situation becomes.

In the north we are totally different compared to the rest of the country in that we are sort of held hostage to southern systems. We do not have the major surgical or technical equipment and we must Medivac people at great expense to Alberta or British Columbia. Of course, this upsets their system. There is no organized guaranteed time that we have in those systems. I am hoping that as we review the system and fix it we will be able to determine some sort of system, either by purchasing time or some guaranteed schedule, so that Yukoners can have access to southern hospitals and specialists and can be guaranteed that in their times of need.

[Aboriginal Affairs, October 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in September of 2000 the first ministers announced the early childhood development initiative as a national priority. At that time the Government of Canada committed to working with aboriginal peoples to address the developmental needs of aboriginal children. We know that aboriginal children are more vulnerable to poverty than children in the mainstream of Canadian society.

Could the Secretary of State for Children and Youth tell us what is being done to address the pressing needs of aboriginal children?

[Supply, October 24th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy debating with the member. I am on a very productive committee with him. It is an excellent interaction so I know he will have excellent answers for my three questions.

First, to help advance the knowledge in the debate, could he outline on the other side of the coin any benefits or cost savings he sees from signing Kyoto? In a balanced debate, there are things on both sides of the balance sheet.

Second, I am curious as to how he answers the e-mails of the many people who are in support of Kyoto such as all of us receive.

Finally, how could he abandon the farmers in his riding? They have been his so drastically by the drought in recent years which has devastated their families as one of the effects of climate change.

[Supply, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the opposition for a very productive motion. I do not see why everyone in the House could not support the motion. I hope this is a new sign of constructive opposition day motions.

As a preamble to my question I want to mention some of the input I have had from my riding, which, I believe as in all ridings, is mixed. Of course chambers of commerce have some concern. I know they will appreciate the motion. The motion today is the position I have been taking since the summer.

There is a lot of mining resource extraction in my riding and so any petroleum effects will be important. In fact yesterday the Mining Association of Canada asked me about a plan and it is great that it has been released today.

However, on the other side, I have had overwhelming input from first nations and many citizens. Obviously there has been physical evidence. People who were depending on ice river crossings cannot get home now. Many buildings that have been permanently frozen in permafrost for decades are now melting at great expense. The Yukon Medical Association is also concerned and it wants us to speedily ratify Kyoto.

I have two questions. The member was quite concerned about costs and gave a number on one side of the balance sheet, but, as he said, he would like good debate. On the other side of the balance sheet , I wonder if he could outline a few of the costs if we do not sign Kyoto because I am sure no one would disagree that there are some.

The second question is as follows. Once again he said that he wanted public debate and democracy. A lot of the Alliance members, just like us, will have received a lot of letters asking us to ratify Kyoto. I would like to know, in his spirit of public debate, what he replies to those people who have asked him to support Kyoto.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 23rd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I have two questions for the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. As always, I appreciate his thoughtful intervention.

The member recently proposed that to attract rural doctors there could be an advance payment of their tuition. He proposed that as a new and exciting idea but I recently met with the Yukon Medical Association and it is ahead of all of us on that. It already has that.

My first question relates to the comments the member made about pharmacare and the cost of the drug system. I am quite keen on making sure that drug patents do not go beyond the 20 year limit through any mechanism and I wonder if the member supports that.

My second question relates to his comments on the OAS and the pension plan. He made a thoughtful suggestion for improving the contribution to low income earners on the OAS whereby the OAS itself would be capped at $60,000 or $70,000 and then all those savings would be put, I assume in a revenue neutral fashion, into the supplement.

I am curious. Does the Alliance Party have that in its platform? Does it agree with that position?

[Rick Gleason, October 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this morning in Australia, former Yukoner Rick Gleason died of injuries received during the Bali bomb attack.

On behalf of Parliament I wish to express our sincere condolences to Rick's family for the loss of their dearly loved and caring family member.

In talking to Mr. Gleason's family this morning, I let them know that I went to the Australian High Commission, not only to offer our condolences for their losses but to express our appreciation for the Australian government's generous assistance to Rick's family and to other Canadians, and the wonderful care provided by the health care workers and the hospital in Australia to Rick in his last days.

For Mr. Gleason I will do anything in my power to end these senseless acts and to remove the conditions that cause them. I thank Rick for his wonderful life. We will all miss him.

[Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, October 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue with my comments on the other four points and I will try to make them more quickly. First, there were different rules by the six designated offices in Yukon. The umbrella board shows consistency in all those rules, but the rules made by the board shall prevail over the rules made by the designated office to the extent of any consistency. That is in clause 31(5).

He talked about the fact that there was no audit. There is an audit of the board as set out clause 28(3). The fifth was about business interests on the board and of course the government appoints those members. If the member is in government, hopefully he will keep in mind sustainable development and economic interests when he makes appointments to boards.

Finally, is the hope that Yukoners will have strong memberships on all bodies. The six designated offices are throughout Yukon. Travelling every week, I know that no one will commute to Yukon to be on these bodies. They will work there for those six bodies. For the umbrella board, it says right in the bill that the chair and the majority of members must be Yukoners. I think that deals with those concerns.

I want to make one final comment on the fact that the six different designated offices can do things locally. That is a very big strength in the bill. Perhaps the member's riding in Manitoba is different. However, in Yukon we are vastly different. It is not one set economy and conditions. There is the beautiful Kluane range with the biggest icefields anywhere in the world outside the polar caps. There is the placer mining near Dawson City and the great forest in the southeast Yukon.

Any process that can be flexible to help environmental review of these and maybe standard conditions for like operations that might be in that area will enhance and speed up the process and be more sensitive to local areas, just like the Alliance Party is sensitive to the provinces and wants them to have powers so local people can have input.