Hugh Hanrahan

[Supply, April 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we will be splitting our time.

I thank my colleague for her question. With respect to the distinction between provinces, she is aware that already happens. From the investigations I have made with various medical people they suggest there are health problems relatively unique to certain areas, to certain provinces, to certain communities. In those areas they should be able to direct as much of their resources as possible. We are trying to localize it to the people most affected.

With respect to the core area, that is something which we have to debate as a national government, a national society, and we have to come to some agreement as to what is universal from one end of the country to the other. However, there are certain aspects which do not require that.

In terms of accessibility, the essential core agreements must be available to all regardless of income. I believe I made that relatively clear in my speech.

[Supply, April 27th, 1995]

Yes. It is for this reason that the Reform members of Parliament believe the only viable solution to safeguard our health care system from a fiscal crisis is to redefine the Canada Health Act. It should allow the provinces to find solutions that make the most sense for their region, through exercise of their constitutional jurisdiction over health care. The role of the federal government should be to provide financial support and equalization through the taxation and transfer system and to ensure that no Canadian is denied health care for financial reasons.

The Reform Party advocates amending the health care act to restore to the province the administrative jurisdiction the federal government has expropriated through the use of its spending powers. In other words, we will leave it in the hands of the provinces where it belongs.

What worked yesterday does not necessarily work today. What was taboo in the past is possibly accepted today. This applies to the federal transfer payment system which, after having its successes, is now coming up against its failures. Few people would dispute that to rectify the inefficient allocation of resources it is urgent that we put our public finances on a more solid footing to create an economic environment that will contribute more to efficiency and growth. However, the way to achieve this may not be compatible with certain political, social or provincial expectations.

As just stated, the federal government would seem to be feeling more and more trapped by its policy of imposing national standards and its desire to reconsider the refinancing of transfer payments.

We must continually remind ourselves it is the provinces and not the federal government that have the constitutional jurisdiction to operate the health care system. It is the provinces and not the federal government that provide the bulk of health care funding. It is the provinces and not the federal government that have the greatest expertise in health care delivery.

We on the Reform side of the House have to move ourselves away from the corner and into the forefront of health care policy issues. The way to do this is to focus the federal government's role on making no strings attached transfer payments to bring adequate health care within the financial reach of all provinces and citizens.

The provinces in consultation with patients, health care workers and taxpayers should be left to explore new options for greater health care efficiency without fear of being penalized by Ottawa.

We ultimately should be transferring additional tax points based on the notion that each province will clearly define what its core level of basic services will be. This list can ultimately and should differ from province to province. This would be our version of national standards to which the federal government could rate the provinces on their record against their core level of services.

Not only would we like to have a clearly defined level of basic core services but would also expect the provinces to shift more toward a community based development philosophy of delivering health care. This process and approach is to work with a community to address unmet needs and issues of concern to that specific community. It is based on the principle that the community affected by an issue is in the best position to articulate its needs and desires and to devise appropriate strategies to address these needs.

The core services and community based development approach, linked with the no strings attached tax point transfer, would ensure accessibility for everyone in a cost effective and efficient manner. This accessibility will ultimately be redefined to recognize that long waiting lists for essential services are a denial of access.

[Supply, April 27th, 1995]

Albertans are gracious individuals and they have felt that being part of Canada has had its costs, but they also feel the benefits have outweighed these costs. I agree with that attitude, yet I also find that many Albertans are rethinking this attitude of generosity.

Another area that has become extremely contentious, particularly in Alberta and B.C. is the established programs funding. This funding is an arrangement between the federal government and the provinces relating to the funding of post-secondary education and health care. I will try to limit my comments solely to health care due to time limitations.

First, the Reform Party has no intention of dismantling medicare, nor do we want to create some form of a U.S. style

two-tier health care system. Instead, the Reform Party argues that our health care system is already gravely ill as its costs are going out of control in relation to the funding available.

Our intention is to ensure the long term viability of health care in this country. Health care is an issue which lies at the heart of most Canadians. It is Reform policy to ensure that no Canadian is denied adequate health care services for financial reasons, regardless of where they live in Canada.

Currently, provincial governments possess the legal and constitutional responsibility to provide health insurance and services. They do not however, possess the authority to take the administrative steps to control medical costs and/or raise additional revenue for health care services. Reformers believe that this arrangement puts both the federal and provincial governments at odds with each other, rather than allowing them to get on with the job of providing improved quality health care to all Canadians.

In fact, the Canadian Medical Association has argued that the country's health insurance system will be colliding with the economic reality in which it, the health care system, cannot be maintained in its present form. I believe this collision has already begun. This is apparent if we look at the federal budgets throughout the 1990s.

We have seen virtually a non-stop series of cuts and freezes in the federal government's transfers to the provinces. This has pushed the federal government into a corner. It realizes that it is risking losing control over national standards in health care should the cash transfers to any province cease entirely.

This problem is further troubled by the fact that federal provincial relations regarding transfers has been marked by decisions which have nothing to do with the search for balance or fairness in the use of our resources. I refer here to the national energy program and the recent gas tax that hit Alberta harder than any other province.

[Supply, April 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to address the issue of established programs funding in regard to health care.

The issue of established programs funding is of great concern to the constituents of my riding of Edmonton-Strathcona. While Alberta is battling its debt and deficit problem without increasing taxes, it is also doing it with less and less resources from the federal government. Since health care is Alberta's largest single area of government expenditure, I feel it is of the utmost importance to debate this issue.

In 1993-94 the federal government provided transfers of $40.5 billion to the provinces. The majority, approximately 71 per cent of these transfers, was for the established programs financing and equalization program. Out of this $40.5 billion, tax transfers were approximately $13 billion. It is the established programs funding, the tax transfers which I wish to spend most of my time discussing today. However, before we can discuss these transfers, it is important to look briefly at the equalization program.

Alberta has been deemed a have province. According to a recent study by a University of Calgary professor, it has paid in $139 billion more than it has received since Confederation.

[Supply, March 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the opportunity to deal with the question.

What I would recommend very clearly is that we look at a number of possible options with respect to the privatization of the CBC. The first option would be an outright sale to the highest bidder.

While I recognize the beginning of a trend to cut the CBC's budget, what concerns me is that we are going to continue to cut the CBC and have it die the death of a thousand cuts. There will be nothing left at the end of it. If it is going to be viable, saleable, I recommend we sell it while it still has strength.

Another possibly would be a simple public share issue which would divest the government of the entire company. A third option, although I do not particularly favour it over the other two, is mixed ownership involving public and private investors, as we have done with other companies.

[Supply, March 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the Reform members will be splitting their time today.

It gives me great pleasure to rise today to discuss this motion which has been put forward by my hon. colleague from the Bloc Quebecois.

It is important to note that it seems a little particular that we are debating this issue in the House when this exact issue is before the heritage committee. We as a committee have been reviewing the CBC for quite some time, focusing primarily on the issue of the role of the CBC in a 500 channel universe.

When the committee began this endeavour in September of last year, our mandate also included how to fund the CBC and report to the finance minister with recommendations for budgetary cuts in this year's budget. That timetable was postponed. We then set a new tentative date to conclude and make our recommendations to the House as a whole by the beginning of March. It is obvious the committee did not meet that timetable.

Presently we are still reviewing the CBC. No action plan or recommendations are in place. Therefore perhaps it is appropriate that the Bloc has introduced this motion to debate this issue on the CBC.

It is also abundantly clear to me and to most Canadians that this government is unwilling to deal with the fundamental issues such as the CBC and its financing. Since our arrival in Ottawa this government has introduced discussion paper after discussion paper while ignoring the pleas of Canadians for action.

If we look at the Liberals' latest budget, we see they have begun to sing from the same songbook as the Reform Party. Canada's national debt and deficit have moved from the back burner to the mid-range burner. These notorious tax and spend Liberals are beginning to see the flaws in such a policy, yet they are still attempting to hold onto all government entrenched programs through an ever decreasing amount of resources.

The fact is however that Canada does not have a revenue problem but a spending problem. This spending problem is perpetuated by the fact that the federal government continually spends billions of dollars on programs that could be done by the private sector at no cost to the taxpayer. This would ensure that the necessary funding would be available for priority departments such as health, education, defence and veterans affairs.

In terms of privatization, this government has taken a step in the right direction, however it has not gone far enough. Every ministry has one or more areas in which the government is providing a service which is in competition with the private sector or could be done more effectively by the private sector.

We as a government must balance our books which means all areas of public financing must be evaluated for efficiency, cost and effectiveness. It is for these reasons we are looking at the financing of the CBC.

The CBC's primary mandate should be the provision of distinctive culture specific information and drama programming. In an increasing multichannel environment the current mandate to provide a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains is too broad.

It is also clear that the mandate of the CBC is to provide Canadians with predominantly Canadian programming. What Canadians are being subjected to is extremely questionable in terms of meeting this prescribed mandate.

The issue is no longer whether the CBC has adequate funding. That has passed long ago. Rather, it is the structure of the CBC. In particular, the CBC has not adjusted to the realities of the marketplace. It is outdated, highly centralized and expensive.

We must constantly remind ourselves that the Canadian broadcasting environment has changed radically since the original conception of the CBC.

New technologies and new services change viewing tastes and fundamental changes in advertising behaviours have transformed the broadcasting environment. Do not forget that in a world where the CBC is no longer the only national service, does it make sense to use scarce public funds to subsidize the provision of commercial television programming?

In this new world of broadcasting, consisting of many more options to television viewers, public broadcasting cannot effectively maintain the objective that it is all things to all people.

It is therefore essential for survival in this multichannel universe that the public broadcaster be willing to reinvent itself. It is quite evident the corporation is unwilling to do that.

The president and the former president of the CBC stated revenues were not their mission. We must therefore as parliamentarians address this area for them. Since revenues are not the mission of the CBC, what is?

How can a private company such as CTV make revenues its mission while still adhering to Canadian content regulations? CTV last year spent $488 million while the CBC spent $561 million on Canadian content programming. This is not a huge difference considering we spent over $1 billion for the operation of the CBC and nothing on CTV.

CTV spends close to the same as CBC on Canadian productions. The difference is that one is government owned and one is privately owned. One is a drain on the public purse, the other adds to the public coffers through taxation of profits.

Had this government privatized the CBC it could have saved the taxpayer approximately $800 million and this number does not include revenues that would have been generated from the sale of approximately $1.5 billion in assets, which the CBC currently holds.

The sceptics will rise and say that if we privatize the CBC, Canadian culture will perish, Canadian culture cannot survive without government intervention. Surely they jest. Canadians are extremely talented. They produce, write, paint, create. They do this not because the government says it is okay, but rather because they want to create. The fruits of their labour will sell if it is quality, and it will not if it is not.

Art and culture should be created not because government thinks it is so, but because the artist wants to do it. The more government gets involved, the more things seem to go awry.

I would like to make a comparison between the privatization of Air Canada, Petro-Canada and the possibility of similar action being taken with regard to the CBC but I see my time is running out.

I would like to amend the motion of the Bloc. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "years".

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has pressed a number of issues in my speech. With regard to the oil patch expenditures, while I agree that these have been made, they are nothing compared to the national energy program that took billions and billions of dollars out of Alberta.

I would not suggest, however, that we continue funding uneconomic programs, whether they be in oil or whatever commodity we are dealing with. With regard to the taxes on public as opposed to private, when the tax program was in place it was refunded directly by the private companies back to the consumer. In Alberta we have the majority of privately owned gas and electricity organizations. We are giving a tax free holiday to the publicly owned companies in Ontario and Quebec at the expense of Alberta and I believe Nova Scotia. This is grossly unfair to the consumer and to the average citizen in both of those provinces.

With regard to the comment on the CBC, let me deal with the historical aspect. I agree the CBC has played a significant role in the development of Canadian culture. We must remember that was back in the days when we had perhaps two, at most three television networks in the country.

The heritage committee right now is investigating the role of the CBC in a 500 channel universe. If we have a CBC which is costing $1.1 billion at a time when the government is rightly trying to restrict its expenditures, can we afford, when we are cutting back on health, when we are cutting back on education, can we afford the luxury-

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this year's budget debate.

I feel fortunate to be able to have this opportunity to pass on the views of my constituents of Edmonton-Strathcona. The constituents of Edmonton-Strathcona voted for a Reform member of Parliament based primarily on three principles: justice reform, parliamentary reform and, most significantly, fiscal reform.

It is because of the fiscal reform that I became involved in politics. I wanted to ensure that the standard of living which I have enjoyed will be maintained and passed on to my children and to my children's children.

This budget presented by the Liberals does nothing to seriously address the national debt and deficit problem. It has been said that a new government receives only one chance to make the necessary changes, one window of opportunity. This government has had not one but two chances.

The first was a year ago when the government was more concerned about increasing the deficit through increased spending and claiming that the deficit was not a problem. It then spent the rest of the year producing discussion paper after discussion paper while doing nothing.

The second and final narrow window of opportunity which the government has had to balance the budget passed earlier this month when it failed to implement the necessary restructuring in its latest budget.

It is therefore amazing to me that this government can stand before the citizens of Canada and present such a disheartening and ineffective budget. It is another example of Liberal smoke and mirrors. The Liberals state this budget is exactly what the doctor ordered. If this is the prescribed medicine, it not only smells bad and tastes bad but it is totally ineffective. Canadians have been subjected to a clinical trial where they have received nothing but a placebo.

This budget has cut spending by $12 billion over three years with a cut of only $4.1 billion in 1995-96. What the government is not telling Canadians is that we are borrowing more money this year than we did last year even after these poorly placed budget cuts.

The reason for this is extremely painful. It is because the interest payments on the debt are becoming astronomically high because of previous Liberal and Conservative governments and this Liberal government's continuation to run deficit after deficit.

With this Liberal plan Canada will still be running deficits of approximately $25 billion annually by 1997. This is a sad commentary on the government's unwillingness to listen to Canadians. At the end of the day, the national debt will still rise by $100 billion and Canadians will have to cough up nearly $50 billion a year in interest payments. This is a $12 billion increase since the Liberal fat pack came to power.

The Liberals have also managed to introduce a budget which involves short term pain with even longer term pain. What Canadians wanted was a budget which not only controlled spending but a budget which made a concerted effort to begin the process in which the deficit can be eliminated.

This is what we introduced in the taxpayers budget. It was a budget that could have seen the elimination of our national deficit within three years. The Reform Party had its fair share of short term pain. However, it had a light at the end of the tunnel. It was a budget that reflected hope and prosperity, unlike the Liberal budget which reflects doom and despair.

The Liberals have merely postponed the tough decisions until 1997. If they are unwilling to do the right thing now, how can they expect Canadians to believe they will be willing to make the right decisions down the road when those same problems still exist and the tough decisions have become tougher?

They should be honest with Canadians. I know we were with respect to the Reform alternative budget. The Liberals should come clean with Canadians and explain the consequences of their fiscal indecision and ineptitude. It took the Liberals 12 years to add the first $100 billion to the national debt. By the end of this mandate, the Liberals will have added a further $100 billion in only four years. This Liberal fat pack is extremely efficient, efficient overspenders.

Middle class Canadians are asking the same questions the Reformers are. For example, is heating your home a tax loophole? Is having electricity in your home a tax loophole? Is having water a tax loophole? Is having a car a tax loophole?

If the answer to these questions is no, then my constituents, Albertans, and for that matter all Canadians would like answers to the following: Despite this government's promise to limit tax increases to the rich and corporations by closing the so-called tax loopholes, why is it that the middle class has ended up with the burden of paying the majority of this year's nearly $1 billion tax increase in which a $.5 billion gas tax is included?

Why does the Liberal Party exploit Alberta to the extent that it does? Liberal governments have been notorious for abusing Albertans and this government continues the Liberal legacy. First we had the national energy program. Now we have the termination of the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act through which nearly $200 million annually will be taken out of the pockets of Albertans.

While it is true this government did not raise personal income taxes, this government continues to speak out of both sides of its mouth. There is only one taxpayer and taxes did in fact rise by $1 billion this year and will rise by almost another $3 billion by 1997. Instead of tax increases, the government should have looked at the elimination of funding for non-priority items such as multiculturalism or regional development programs such as ACOA, WED or FORD-Q.

The government has taken a step in the right direction in terms of privatization. However, it did not go far enough. Every ministry has one or more areas in which the government is providing a service which is in competition with the private sector or could be done more efficiently by the private sector.

The Department of Canadian Heritage is no different. Due to time constraints I will focus my comments on the CBC. The CBC's primary mandate should be the provision of distinctive, culture specific information and drama programming. In an increasingly multi-channeled environment the current mandate to provide a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains is too broad. It is also clear that the mandate of the CBC is to provide Canadians with predominantly Canadian programming. However, what Canadians are being subjected to is extremely questionable in terms of meeting the prescribed mandate.

The issue is no longer whether the CBC has adequate funding, as that passed long ago, but rather the structure of the CBC. In particular, the organization has not adjusted to the realities of the marketplace. It is an outdated, highly concentrated and expensive organization.

We must constantly remind ourselves that the Canadian broadcasting environment has changed radically since the conception of the CBC. New technologies, new services, changing viewer tastes and fundamental changes in advertising behaviour

have transformed the broadcasting environment. We must not forget that in a world where the CBC is no longer the only national service, does it make sense to use scarce public funds to subsidize the provision of commercial television programming?

In this new world of broadcasting consisting of many more options to television viewers, public broadcasting cannot effectively maintain its all things to all people objective. It is therefore essential for survival in this multi-channel universe that the public broadcaster be willing to reinvent itself. It is quite evident that the corporation is unwilling to do just that.

When the president of the CBC states that revenues are not its mission, we must therefore as parliamentarians address this area for it. Since revenues are not the mission of the CBC, what is?

How can a private company such as CTV make revenues its mission while still adhering to Canadian content legislation? Last year, CTV spent $488 million on Canadian content. The CBC spends $561 million on Canadian content programming. This is not a huge difference considering we spent over $1 billion for the operation of CBC and nothing on CTV. CTV spends close to the same amount as CBC on Canadian production. The difference is, one is government owned and one is privately owned. One is a drain on the public purse and one adds to the public coffers through taxation and profit.

Had the government privatized CBC television, it could have saved the taxpayers approximately $800 million. This number does not include the revenue which would have been generated from the sale of approximately $1.5 billion in assets which the CBC currently holds.

The government must balance its books, which means all areas of public financing must be evaluated for efficiency and cost effectiveness. It is for these reasons that the Reform Party will not support the budget.

[Petitions, March 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to present a petition on behalf of approximately 15,000 Edmontonians. I also understand that there are several petitions being presented on the same issue that equal approximately 64,000 names.

The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House the inadequacies of the Young Offenders Act. They request that a complete and thorough review of the existing legislation take place aimed at changing sentencing and repeat offending.

It is my pleasure to submit this petition and to also inform my constituents and Edmontonians that I thoroughly concur with these petitioners.

[Sports Canada, February 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want action, not more studies. Will the minister act to rectify the gross mismanagement in Sports Canada?