House of Commons Hansard #186 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was cbc.

Topics

Division No. 322
Government Orders

7 p.m.

The Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

Division No. 322
Government Orders

7 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Division No. 322
Government Orders

7 p.m.

The Speaker

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 323
Government Orders

7:10 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from February 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-63, an act respecting Canadian citizenship, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Citizenship Of Canada Act
Government Orders

7:10 p.m.

The Speaker

The next recorded division is on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-63.

Citizenship Of Canada Act
Government Orders

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Kilger Stormont—Dundas, ON

Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yes.

Citizenship Of Canada Act
Government Orders

7:10 p.m.

The Speaker

Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion?

Citizenship Of Canada Act
Government Orders

7:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Citizenship Of Canada Act
Government Orders

7:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 324
Government Orders

March 1st, 1999 / 7:15 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Division No. 324
Adjournment Proceedings

7:20 p.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis Winnipeg North Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to elaborate on a question I raised with the Minister of Health on February 17.

In that question I raised the serious problem of the growing privatization of our health care system and an ever increasing slide into an Americanized two tier health care system. As part of that concern, I also raised the apparent tendency on the part of this government to stand by and let it happen.

This is an opportunity for the federal government to explain its position on the privatization of health care.

On February 17 I asked the government about the deplorable situation in Ontario where the entire health care program, specifically the home care program, has been opened up for competitive bidding.

I raised with this government the matter of federal public dollars going into private, for profit companies. I asked the government to ensure that not one penny of the new health care dollars in the so-called health care budget would go to line the pockets of for profit, and in many cases American owned corporations.

The parliamentary secretary's position in my view was quite shocking, quite deplorable. On behalf of the government she said to all of us that the federal government cannot and will not interfere with issues of delivery. She used jurisdictional arguments to avoid the issue and excuse the lack of leadership on the part of the federal government.

I ask for the federal government's policies on the matter of privatizing our health care system, notwithstanding the jurisdictional issues. We would like to know from the government what its position is on the matter of public dollars going to for profit, private health care companies.

Where does the government stand? How does it feel about this issue? What kind of leadership is it offering Canadians on this matter? Where is the vision of this government in terms of whether or not we will be able to uphold a publicly administered, universally accessible health care system? Does this government agree or disagree with Mike Harris, and for that matter any provincial government that is using federal public dollars to put into private, for profit health care delivery of our system today?

This is an opportunity for the government to clarify. We did not get much clarification from the parliamentary secretary in question period. We did not get much clarification throughout the budgetary process about where this government stands on the erosion of medicare and on the growth in the private sector ownership of our health care system.

We are now in a situation with well over 30% of health care spending being held in the hands of private sector companies. That is an amazing shift from years gone by. We also know that with this federal budget we will only achieve in five years time a federal share of up to 12.5%. That means very little will be done on the part of this government through this budget or any other subsequent measures to reverse this trend and to ensure that we have some ability to preserve medicare and to take this medicare model and apply it to the whole continuum of care.

Division No. 324
Adjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

Thornhill
Ontario

Liberal

Elinor Caplan Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise once again to try to clarify the issue for the member opposite. At first I thought that she did not understand. Now I am not sure that it is that she does not understand. I do believe that she is mixing, and perhaps deliberately, different concepts.

Division No. 324
Adjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

The Speaker

Please stay away from deliberating mixing.

Division No. 324
Adjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

Liberal

Elinor Caplan Thornhill, ON

Mr. Speaker, inadvertently. How is that?

The federal government, working in collaboration with the provinces and territories, achieved a historic national commitment on the future of publicly funded medicare. We have a written commitment from every premier and government leader from every province and territory in Canada, including Quebec, to uphold the principles of the Canada Health Act: universality, comprehensiveness, accessibility, portability and public administration.

They also committed that every penny of new dollars in the 1999 budget transferred from the federal government to the other jurisdictions would be used for health services. That guarantees the continued viability of a quality public, not private, health care system.

I spoke about provincial jurisdiction and I want to explain to the member what that means. The provincial government has the responsibility to see how its services are delivered. For example, doctors do not work for provincial governments. They are not provincial civil servants. Across the country lab services are provided sometimes by the ministry of health, sometimes by private sector corporations, sometimes by a municipality.

For many years in different parts of the country home care services are provided sometimes by not for profit corporations, sometimes by corporate entities. Nursing homes are sometimes private, sometimes are not for profit. The same is true for ambulance services.

This is called a mixed economy. It is up to the provinces to decide how those services will be delivered. We do not tell them how. Even if we do not like it, there is nothing we can do or say about it.