Libby Davies

[Supply, May 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue the discussion with my colleague, the member for Quebec. What I hear clearly from the member is that from her perspective and her party's perspective they would like to see the money on the table and the federal government's commitment. It sounds like that is as far as it goes.

However, given the debate we have had here today, particularly the concerns about the increased privatized for profit delivery of health care services, it seems to me, and I think those of us in the NDP, that it is very important that there be some attachment in terms of a commitment to not see an increase in privatized for profit services.

I would be very interested in hearing the Bloc member's perspective in terms of the Canada Health Act and making it clear that it does not support the delivery of privatized for profit services.

[Supply, May 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member for Quebec who spoke very eloquently about the problems with the funding arrangement, which is, as we well know, at the core of the crisis in the health care system in Canada.

When we look back over the years and we see the retreat of public funding from the federal government in terms of transfers to the provinces, we see where the crisis began. As we all know, the funding level from the federal government, which used to be at 50%, is now at about 16%. We in the NDP have said that we want to see it go back to at least 25%.

If I heard the member correctly, I think she pointed out that, at the current rate, the level of government funding in another 15 years would only be at 17%. That is very disturbing.

As we know, the Prime Minister has made a big deal about how he is going to consult with the provinces. Of course, it coincidentally happens to be on the eve of a federal election. None of us have any idea what this plan of consultation is or what the Liberal plan is for longer term commitments to health care.

I wonder if the member would comment on what she and her party would like to see in terms of a commitment from the government.

[Supply, May 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we are not fools in the House and after what we have just heard, is it any wonder that Canadians are totally confused about where the Liberal Party actually stands in terms of dealing with private for profit health care delivery?

Having heard the member for Vancouver Centre, I think she knows very well that we are not debating and talking about private physicians, or private dentists as she talked about yesterday on a CPAC panel. We are talking about the private for profit delivery of health care and how this has mushroomed under the Liberal watch. There is no escaping that reality.

There is just one very simple question. Does the Liberal government support privatized for profit health care services in Canada or not? If it does not, why have we now gone through a decade of seeing these services escalate across the country? The Liberal government has not taken any action to prevent this from happening. Why is that the case?

[Supply, May 11th, 2004]

Your party destroyed it.

[Supply, May 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, when the member for Mississauga South began his remarks he said that he was speaking about his own position. I am not sure if that was on everything he said or if at some point he began to articulate where his party stands. I am somewhat confused because I think either one supports our public health care system and the public delivery of services that have been ensured through that system or one does not.

We all recognize that there has been a huge encroachment on our public health care system and an enormous growth in these private for profit services and the delivery of those services.

The question I have for the member is, where does his party stand? It has been incredibly confusing.

I congratulate the member for Churchill who, as a member of the health committee, drew out the Minister of Health and actually made him articulate some of his own vision of where he thought health care was in terms of privatization. Maybe the member could enlighten us in terms of where his own party stands in stopping this encroachment of for profit private delivery of health care services because that is what we are seeing in almost every province.

[Petitions, May 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to present a petition signed by a number of people from the Toronto area who call for family reunification. They point out that family reunification has long been and remains a cornerstone of Canada's immigration policy. The petitioners support Bill C-436 that would amend the act to allow a family member to sponsor a family member who would not otherwise qualify under the existing rules.

[Liberal Party of Canada, May 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, let us go to yet another fine example of Liberal democracy. There are 14 ridings in which friends of the Prime Minister have been appointed or his opponents miraculously dropped out so a friend could run. Fourteen times Mr. Democracy decided his friends needed to run more than local communities needed to vote. Of course, this goes hand in hand with Liberal patronage, including the joke job of special adviser of the near east and south caucasus, wherever that is.

Could the Prime Minister explain why anyone would believe anything he says, given the gulf between rhetoric and reality on democracy?

[Sponsorship Program, May 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, today two people were arrested and charged with fraud, representing just 2% of the $100 million at the heart of the Liberal sponsorship scandal. Clearly there is more to come given the rush of Liberal members who want to shut down the public accounts committee so the Prime Minister can go to the polls before his hypocrisy on almost every issue becomes clear to the voters.

Is it not true that the Liberals want to shut down the committee because they know that today's arrests are just the tip of the iceberg of Liberal corruption? Is that not what is really going on?

[Health, May 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the increase of HIV-AIDS within the aboriginal community is a huge health concern.

It is very disturbing to know that the government cut by 10% the core budget of the Canadian Aboriginal AIDS Network. This flies in the face of a standing committee report that called for more than a doubling of funds for the Canadian AIDS strategy.

Where are the government's priorities really? Is it more political window dressing on health care, or real resources and financial support to help our front line organizations, like the network, do their jobs and save lives?

[Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, May 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-34, an act to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. At the outset, the NDP very much supports the bill. It will go to committee for further discussion on it.

However, a question was raised earlier by the member from the Conservative Party as to whether the bill, which is so long overdue, was simply a matter of window dressing. There is a very serious question here. Why has the government taken so long to introduce what is fairly straightforward legislation to deal with a longstanding and chronic problem in Canadian waters: the dumping of oily bilge and ballast waters from some of these huge tankers. As we know, the estimates are that on the Atlantic coast alone about 300,000 birds are killed each year. I am from the west coast. We do not know what the estimates are on the west coast, but we know it is also a significant problem.

First, there should be a lot of serious questions. We in the NDP have some pretty tough questions for the government as to why the legislation is being brought in at the last moment. Clearly it appears that we are on the verge of an election and this will likely never be realized as legislation in this Parliament. What a shame. How many more birds will be victims of pollution dumping as a result of a failed environmental agenda by the government?

One of the principles that we have to advocate most strongly is the polluter pay principle, and the bill attempts to do that. Raising the fines up to $1 million is a step definitely in the right direction. However, we also need to have some serious concerns about whether the additional resources required for enforcement, for example, will actually be in existence.

We can have the legislation, we can have the fines laid out, but if we do not have the infrastructure or the resources on the ground to get out and see what is going on and to ensure that these violators are being caught, then the legislation is not worth the paper on which it is written. That will be a question that we pursue in the committee to ensure that the legislation is backed up by the kind of resources that are required to do the job.

The sad reality is that for many of these corporate polluters, it is easier for them to face a fine than it is to stop the pollution and to clean up the pollution. We know for example, from the International Fund for Animal Welfare, that the average fine has been about $16,000. This is far lower than what the violation and cost of cleanup is. Again, it is important to ensure that there are adequate fine levels to send a very strong message to polluters that continually violate our laws.

In the context of the government's environmental record, while the bill is a good individual specific step, it has quite an atrocious record on the environment. Again, being from the west coast, there is huge concern about the government being willing to look at lifting the moratorium on oil and gas exploration off the Pacific coast, something that we very much oppose.

We in the NDP believe the people of Canada are entitled to an environmental bill of rights that gives us the power to protect our environment. We have had some discussion here today in this debate about these tankers. Some people have mentioned the Canada Steamship Lines. Maybe we should focus a bit more on what these tankers are doing and what CSL is doing. Not only have they had an anti-environmental haven, they have also had a tax haven.

The issue of the environment is very much integrated and a part of a broader discussion about our tax laws, about how we treat these corporations and whether we have a green screen, for which the NDP has repeatedly called, through which decisions for the budget, for budgetary priorities or for tax measures or for other environmental measures are seen through.

I say loudly and clearly that I think Canadians, by and large, are very disappointed with this government's record on the environment. While this bill, in and of itself, is a good bill in principle, it really begs the question why the government has waited so long to act.

I was curious to know why the Conservative Party spokesperson on the bill would attack Maude Barlow, from the Council of Canadians. First, here is a Canadian, the voluntary chairperson of the Council of Canadians, who has done probably more than most anybody else in the country to bring public attention, consciousness and awareness to what Canada has actually sold out. It has sold out in terms of its natural resources. Under NAFTA and the FTAA, we basically have moved into an agenda of corporate power that allows resources to be traded without any sense of democratic practice or democracy that would come from elected parliaments.

To attack Maude Barlow is quite unconscionable. She is the person who has made it very clear that Canada should not be allowing the bulk export of our water, just as we have done in the NDP. That has been a major issue for us too, and we have raised this in the House.

Let us get the record straight here and make it clear who the real culprit is. It is that Liberal government. It has in a very lackadaisical way given lip service to protecting our environment. We have not yet fully met our commitments to Kyoto, which is a very basic global commitment to protect our environment and to reduce harmful emission. The government has failed on that record as well.

One way for us to ensure these environmental standards are set and that we do indeed have a green screen through which public policy decisions are made is to ensure there is a strong contingent of New Democrats in this House. It sure as heck will not be the Conservative Party that pushes the government in that direction. If anything, it has limply gone along with the government's anti-environmental agenda.

There are tough decisions to be made for the protection of our environment. It must be made very clear to the corporate sector that violations will not be tolerated, not only in the protection of birds, but in human health as well. We only have to look at things like the Sydney tar ponds or other toxic sites in Canada. Look at the dismal record we have on public transit and the fact that we are pumping more poison and harmful emissions into our air. That is sending more kids to hospital with asthma.

All these things can be traced back to decisions on public policy that emanate from this House and from a political agenda. The government has a choice to make the environment a priority and make it clear that we have strong environmental standards which must be abided by. It has the choice to have public policy decisions that will emphasize green jobs, protection of the environment and transition funds for workers. These are all things for which our party is calling. However, we have not seen any of that from this government.

In closing, we support the legislation in principle. It will now go off to committee. We will examine the bill closely in committee, given the opportunity to do so. We will work very hard to ensure that resources required to ensure the enforcement is met under the bill does take place so violators will be caught and prosecuted. We will ensure that a strong message is sent out that on this score we will not see any further killing of migratory birds.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak and outline the NDP position on this matter.