Claudette Bradshaw

[The Budget, February 18th, 1999]

I hope that Premier Bouchard will invest $400 million, so that all the necessary initiatives can be implemented to support health care and fight child poverty in Quebec.

[The Budget, February 18th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, this is an interesting question, since during the election campaign, Premier Bouchard announced a $400 million investment in health.

This week, we gave Quebec $380 million.

[The Budget, February 18th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member and his colleagues were last year when we did the budget because they keep bringing up the $18.5 billion.

If the member remembers last year's budget, we put an awful lot of money into education for youth. There is the millennium fund. We brought in the child tax credit. We brought in the transitional job fund.

The hon. member should look at what we brought in for health care, education and poverty. The member wants to talk about health care so let us talk about it. We took away $6 billion but with the tax credit we have cut by $3 billion, not $20 billion or $15 billion.

Canadians listening to this debate wonder why they are hearing all these different numbers. I sit here every day and wonder about all the different numbers. At home in my region of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, I can assure the member that our nurses, our patients and our citizens are glad because we gave the message in this budget that health care, children, youth and education are priorities for this government.

[The Budget, February 18th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, for sure, having worked with children I understand what the member is saying. I understand the importance of the environment. However, I would suggest to the hon. member that the budget we received was not very specific. Maybe we should wait for more specific areas to come. When we talk about the environment, I know that this side of the House is very concerned. We will take his request very seriously.

[The Budget, February 18th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Niagara Falls.

Today I would like to address the House about a very important investment that the 1999 federal budget is making. That investment is in our children. We all know that today's children are tomorrow's leaders. This government has taken that saying to heart and we are putting our money where our heart is, in Canada's children, in Canada's future. This budget is an important step in giving our children the support they need to become active and healthy Canadians.

Today I would like to speak about Canadian children. The 1999 federal budget invests in the future of our children. By protecting their future, we are protecting the future of Canada.

The spirit of the 1999 federal budget is health. In addition to the $11.5 billion that we are investing in the health of all Canadians, we are investing $287 million over the next three years in preventative and other health initiatives. This money will go to improve prenatal nutrition, food safety, and toxic substance control, to foster innovations in rural and community health, and to combat disease. More important, this money will help to ensure a healthy future for our children.

The Canada prenatal nutrition program will receive an additional $75 million over the next three years to help high risk pregnant moms have healthier babies. This is an investment we are making in our future. From this investment we will reap both financial and emotional benefits for generations to come. The additional $75 million is on top of the current $13 million we are investing per year. This program is especially dear to my heart because it will address a growing Canadian crisis, fetal alcohol syndrome.

For the past 30 years I have been working in Moncton with children with fetal alcohol syndrome, their parents and pregnant women. They need us. Fifty-five per cent of people in our Canadian prisons are fetal alcohol syndrome victims. It is an economic issue and this is the first time we have had a government that has looked at the preventative measures. We need to help these children become taxpayers and not offenders.

Our children are especially vulnerable to toxic substances in the environment, in food and drinking water. It can affect fetal, infant and childhood development. We all know these are the most crucial years of development for all Canadians. We must work to prevent these effects.

This budget has two direct investments to ensure that we protect Canadians and our children from these harmful effects. It has allocated $65 million over the next three years to modernize and strengthen the federal food and safety program.

In addition it provides Environment Canada with $42 million over the next three years to implement the recently introduced amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. This act aims to protect all Canadians, including our children, from the damaging effects of toxic substances by identifying them quicker and controlling them faster.

In my province of New Brunswick, there is a mix of urban and rural populations. It can be a real challenge to get proper medical treatment in the rural areas, with time being a vital factor in treating children.

We know that care provided at home or in community centres may be a favourable alternative in certain circumstances.

This budget will invest $50 million in the next three years to come up, in consultation with the provinces, with innovative approaches to health care in rural and community settings.

Diabetes is a disease that affects Canadians, and the rate of this disease is particularly high among aboriginal people, striking three times that of the general population. The 1999 federal budget will invest $55 million to combat diabetes. This money will go to finding better ways to prevent this disease and enhance treatment and care.

The 1999 federal budget is not just an investment in health for our children. It also provides direct financial support to families through the Canada child tax benefit and the national child benefit. The federal government is committed through this program to assist low and middle income families with the expenses of raising children. This is an investment in the future of Canada.

In 1996 the Prime Minister and premiers made tackling child poverty a shared priority. This government does not take that priority lightly.

In our two previous budgets we provided $1.7 billion for the children of low income families. This budget announced a further $300 million to enhance the Canada child tax benefit for modest and middle income families. These investments promote fairness and equity among individuals with different incomes and family circumstances because no matter the family, we need to ensure that all Canadian children are able to benefit from all that this great country has to offer.

The national child benefit supplement is a federal, provincial and territorial initiative designed to tackle child poverty. The supplement is available to those who need it the most, low income families. The maximum level of the national child benefit supplement would increase by a total of $350 per child. The net family income level for eligibility will rise from about $27,000 to $30,000 by July 2000.

Enrichments to the national child benefit supplement will result in increased benefits for 1.4 million low income families. A low income family with two children will receive up to 48% more in the year 2000 than they did in 1996.

This year's budget also adds $300 million to the benefits provided to modest and middle income families under the Canada child tax benefit. Taken together with the $850 million announced in the 1997 budget, these measures will increase the child tax benefit by $2 billion this year. Two million modest and middle income families will receive these benefits. In addition, it will be extended to about 100,000 families that currently do not receive it.

Over three quarters of the child tax benefit will go to single parent and single income families. This tax benefit will affect some 3.2 million families, or over 80% of all Canadian children.

More importantly, this money will help our children to successfully prepare their future. This way we are helping them become the pillars of our society.

In closing, I am proud of this budget, a budget that realizes the importance of our children, a budget that invests in those children. I entered politics and came to Ottawa to give a voice to those who did not have one, those Canadians who are children, children who are the future of Canada. These children of the new millennium have the support and commitment of this government.

[Supply, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with the health issue and with child poverty as well. I joined the Liberal Party because I knew that, as a government, having put its fiscal house in order by eliminating the $43 billion deficit, it would immediately start investing in health.

Now, the second budget to be brought down by this federal government after its fiscal house has been put in order will be a health budget. I am proud to be on the Liberal team. We hear our colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois talk about unemployment. We will be dealing with health, and the federal government will be looking after the needs of Canadians in this area.

[Supply, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Winnipeg South.

I am very pleased to take part in today's debate. This dialogue is very timely. The member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie gave his views on the health care debate.

In line with the traditional thinking of his party, he is asking our government to pretend it has no role to play in the health care field. He himself has decided that the federal government could not contribute to improving the health of Canadians in any way other than simply signing cheques. He is mistaken. The fact is, today the Prime Minister is meeting with his provincial and territorial counterparts to look at the social union issue. Indeed reality is quite different from what the member perceives it to be.

Governments know Canadians expect their elected representatives to co-operate. They expect them to present a common front on issues related to the health and the social well-being of Canadians. Today the first ministers' concern is to find the best way to translate their common commitment into action. If there is a single issue that demands a common commitment, it is indeed health care.

Contrary to the figments of the Bloc Quebecois' imagination, in the real world, federal, provincial and territorial governments carry on their respective roles in health care while working together to deal with issues demanding co-ordination and leadership at the national level.

To make it easier for my colleagues in the opposition to understand the situation, I should probably name some concrete measures in the health care field and remind them of intergovernmental co-operation in this area. As we all know, the provinces and territories are responsible for providing day to day health care to Canadians.

This level of government plans its own health care delivery and decides, usually in co-operation with physicians, which services and procedures will be covered by provincial health insurance plan. It sets its priorities, draws up its budgets and negotiates on a wide range of issues with hospitals, physicians, nurses and other stakeholders.

What role is left for the federal government? We all know the position of the Bloc Quebecois, but let us take a look at reality. The federal government has very clear responsibilities in the area of health. And I am not talking about interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction that is recent or that is forthcoming. I am talking about responsibilities that go back to Confederation and that are enshrined in our Constitution.

Let us take health programs for First Nations and for the Inuit for example. The federal government has a clear responsibility to provide health services to the status Indians who live on reserves and to the Inuit. It provides health products and services to those groups and to other eligible individuals. Is that done entirely outside the provincial framework that provides health services to the rest of the population? Of course not.

Once again, the federal government works closely with its provincial and territorial partners. Programs and services are integrated as much as possible to ensure the greatest effectiveness. Effectiveness both at the health outcome and the use of health care resources depends on a knowledge base that is constantly being renewed.

Let us look at the reality of the federal role in health research. That reality is one of a very clear acceptance of the respective roles of both orders of government and a very long history of co-operation.

One of the most soundly conceived provincial research programs in the country is the Fonds de la recherche en santé du Québec. It was designed from the ground up to complement the Medical Research Council of Canada and Health Canada's national health research and development program.

Quebec's program focuses its investment on the development of competitive expertise enabling Quebec researchers to compete successfully for federal research grants. It works and it works to everyone's advantage.

Another example is the needs of children from low income families. The community action program for children and the Canada prenatal nutrition program actively support local initiatives. These initiatives benefit parents, young children and pregnant women who could give birth to underweight babies. Are these examples of federal interference, as the Bloc thinks they are? Of course not.

These initiatives provide financial assistance for community programs and for partnerships with provinces, territories and other interested groups. They are the concrete manifestations of the type of co-operation Canadians expect from their governments.

Since 1957, the federal government has provided funds to the provinces and territories to support health insurance, through a variety of mechanisms over the years.

Today, as we know, the mechanism is the Canada health and social transfer. Contrary to what the Bloc thinks, however, this transfer is not just a cheque sent from Ottawa to the provincial capitals. These funds continue to be governed by the Canada Health Act. Underlying them are a broad range of principles which protect the rights of Canadians as far as health care is concerned.

I would like to remind all hon. members that parliament passed the Canada Health Act in 1984, with the support of all political parties. The principles listed in this act were supported by all parties.

The first principle is accessibility. Canadians can count on reasonable access to medically required care and services.

The second is comprehensiveness. Canadians are entitled to payment of all medically required services provided by physicians and hospitals.

The third principle is universality. All inhabitants of a province or territory are entitled to services, regardless of external factors.

The fourth principle is portability. Canadians are entitled to health care regardless of where in Canada they happened to be when they become ill.

Finally, the fifth principle is public administration, which ensures that only public bodies may administer our health insurance program within a not-for-profit context.

The Canada Health Act has laid down the basic rules for our health insurance program, but we must not be so naive as to believe that harmonization means that there is a single highly rigid system administered by the federal government. The act provides the provinces and territories with great flexibility. It is not a straitjacket.

It says that a province or territory wishing assistance from the federal government must comply with the five principles in the system it chooses. However, the provinces are free to decide how they will provide health care to their citizens.

[Work Stoppages, November 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the strikes by Air Canada and Canada Post received a lot of media attention.

However, during the past year 95% of all Canada Labour Code bargaining disputes were settled without work stoppage.

The conciliation officers from the Department of Labour are very professional and we should be proud of them.

Also the union and business communities should be complimented for bargaining these labour disputes in good faith.

[National Child Day, November 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to alert the House to the annual celebration of National Child Day.

The aim of this day is to make better known and to understand the factors that contribute to the growth of children, especially very young children, so we may help them realize their full potential.

Several events will take place across Canada to mark National Child Day. Many communities have organized events for children and their families.

Our children are our most valuable resource. They will help determine the future of our country. The government is very committed to helping children.

I have spent over 30 years of my life working with children in poverty. We need to continue to provide support and resources at the community level to ensure that the needs of all children are met.

I invite my colleagues in the House to join me in supporting National Child Day and all the activities that will help Canadian children get a good start in life.

[Foreign Aid, November 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that all Canadians share the hon. member's concern.

Yesterday CIDA made an initial contribution of $1 million in emergency assistance through the Red Cross, the Pan American Health Organization and our embassy. A strategic reconnaissance team, including members of the Canadian forces disaster assistance response team, will be deployed today to Central America to determine what further assistance is needed.

I can assure all Canadians that the minister is monitoring the situation very closely.