Debates of April 27th, 1995

Government Response To Petitions

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 16 petitions.

On Statements by Ministers today the President of the Treasury Board will make a brief statement. I understand that representatives of both the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Party will make statements in the usual course on this by unanimous consent. There will be a total of five statements.

Holocaust Memorial Day

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Madam Speaker, 50 years have passed since the liberation of many of the camps that symbolized Hitler's final solution.

Canadians began marking the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Europe on June 4, 1994 when we remembered the sacrifices of thousands of our countrymen on the beaches of Normandy. Today we commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day.

While we mark the end of a tragic time in human history, we must recognize we have all come a long way.

The Nazi holocaust victimized all of humanity. It showed how blind nationalism, racism and bigotry can be.

The Nazi Holocaust victimized all of humanity. It showed how blind nationalism, racism and bigotry, a violation of the very basic democratic principles on which our society is based, can lead to incomprehensible suffering and violence.

The names of the death camps liberated half a century ago ring out as sacred prayers: Dachau, Buchenwald, Treblinka, Bergen Belsen, Auschwitz-Birkenau. These places have become holy ground. We must remember them because they symbolize what humanity is capable of and remind us of our obligation not only to millions of men, women and children who fell victim to tyranny but to future generations around the world.

Canada remembers the suffering of Europe. We remember the deaths of six million Jews and the victimization of millions of other innocent people persecuted because of their religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation or political views.

Canada remembers the selfless sacrifice of thousands of our soldiers who offered their lives for freedom, democracy and for a better future for us today. We honour all of their memories by ensuring we remember why they died. We honour their sacrifice by working for the equality of humanity and being true to our values of respect and understanding.

Canada remembers.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Madam Speaker, the official opposition joins the government in giving its unanimous support to the motion tabled by the Secretary of State for Veterans. Fifty years have passed since the end of World War II, a war the likes of which this small planet had never seen before. We had to recognize that neither modern institutions nor the new technologies had helped us achieve peace on this earth.

Toward the end of that great war, the whole world was horrified to discover the existence of concentration camps, an inhumane, cruel and barbaric practice. No words exist to describe this atrocity and express our revulsion towards such a monstrous scheme. There is no excuse whatsoever for concentration camps.

Millions of men, women and children perished under the yoke of tyranny. They could only hope that other countries would rise up and fight in the name of liberty and justice. That is the effort

in which Canada took part. We and our descendants will never forget the valour and courage of those soldiers. It is our duty to ensure that these defenders of freedom will always be present in our collective memory.

The collapse of the Third Reich revealed to the world the largest extermination effort in history. Millions died in the concentration camps set up by the Nazis in occupied Europe, in their electrified barbed wire enclosures, blockhouses, underground factories, experimental rooms, gas chambers and herding areas. Thousands of convoys led victims on the road to hell.

This planned destruction effort was carried out relentlessly until just before surrender. Those convoys let to the internment and slaughter of innocents. Arrival in camp often meant death pure and simple or an even worse fate: forced labour contributing to death. It was a tragedy to witness the torture and slow agony of one's neighbour or be subjected to the same treatment. Malnutrition and illness led to a point of no return, to an exit from life. It is our duty to take a moment to imagine what concentration camps were like, to better understand how crucial it is that we remain steadfast in our firm commitment never to tolerate crimes against humanity.

Fifty years ago today, trucks of the International Red Cross drove into certain concentration camps, marking the end of this hell on earth. Torturers fled. Today, 50 years later, it is our duty to look at this tragedy as if it had happened just yesterday to our relatives, children and parents, so that we never fall victim of such madness. However-sadly for humanity-genocides and organized exterminations continue. Last year, more than one million Rwandans perished in a carefully planned genocide and, to this day, those responsible for this crime go unpunished.

More recently, the slaughter of thousands of Hutu refugees by the Rwandan Army at the Kibeho camp amounted to carnage. The international community witnessed acts of unspeakable cruelty in Bosnia, where ethnic cleansing was systematically carried out. Such events make us wonder whether humanity has learned anything from the lesson we were taught by history.

We must ensure that this kind of massacres among inhabitants of this planet stop. We must remain hopeful that, one day, we will all live in peace, free from these inhuman acts. To commemorate the liberation of Nazi concentration camps is, of course, to pay our respects to the victims, but also pay tribute to all the men and women of this country who made that liberation possible, our veterans, who deserve more than our admiration. We owe them support, particularly when they paid with their health. I hope that this government will take this opportunity to ponder over the way veterans are treated. We cannot renege on our promise to them.

Nor can we afford to relax our vigilance, lest atrocities like those committed in Nazi concentration camps be committed again. Such is the implacable lesson taught by history, a lesson that we must in turn teach our children, so that we never forget. The Bloc Quebecois, for its part, undertakes to do all it can to ensure that this knowledge remains in our collective memory. Together, let us keep this hope alive.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to address the House on behalf of the people of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt and my colleagues in the Reform Party to solemnly commemorate the 50th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi death camps.

We remember the men, the women and the innocent children who perished at the hands of the Nazi tyranny and we honour the many Canadians who fought for freedom and justice at a time of darkness.

We recall the generation of men, women, and children that had to endure the horrors of Nazi tyranny from the 1930s to 1945. For someone born after the war, the reality of this dark period in the history of humanity seems hard to comprehend.

We see the pictures of the Warsaw ghetto, the trainloads of innocent men, women and children being sent to the concentration camps, the deadly gas chambers and the horrific mass graves. As I recall these offences of the past I try to imagine how man could commit these crimes against humanity.

I really began to grasp the magnitude of this tragedy when I saw the numbers of people who died in this horrible conflict. The death toll rivals the size of Canada in 1945. Though we do not have all the names of those who perished, the world must remember Yom Hashoah, Holocaust Memorial Day.

I would like to reiterate the pledge yesterday by the leader of the Reform Party. He spoke for all of us when he stated: "I solemnly vow that we shall honour the memory of those who perished in the Holocaust by remaining vigilant against those who would divide us by promoting hatred and discrimination".

Those who deny this event must be condemned. Besides solemnly commemorating Yom Hashoah and the liberation of the Nazi concentration camps, I would like to honour the tens of thousands of Canadian men and women who fought for freedom and justice. Too many left Canada to never return. In each battle Canadians fought, and despite the odds and terrible toll they had to pay, they never failed to display great courage and resolution. It is a great tribute to our nation to know that most of those who fought in this terrible war did so voluntarily.

It has been 50 years since the Nazi concentration camps were liberated and the guns fell silent. Many soldiers and civilians who experienced the horrors of this war are doing their utmost to

make sure all Canadians and all humanity remember the cause, the course, and the consequences of this conflict.

Yet in the years to come, as veterans and victims pass on, it will be up to my generation and the generation that follows to keep alive the memory. I feel entrusted with a sacred pledge to be able to go to the Netherlands next week to represent my constituents and the Reform Party in the Canada remembrance ceremonies.

For my part, I vow to keep the memory alive and honour our fallen soldiers and the victims of this terrible event. The people and events we are honouring today must not be forgotten in the dustbin of history. It must be remembered that those who forget the past are condemned to relive it.

[Audrey McLaughlin, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, today we rise in the House to remember. Half a century has not erased the memory of the horror of the six million people who were killed in Nazi concentration camps, nor the horror of World War II, which led to this.

Those who fought for the liberation of camps are also remembered today. We remember the families and individuals whose lives were lost in those camps. We admire the strength of those survivors, many of whom came to this country to help, with courage, determination, and strength, to build this country.

As we remember today, there is truly a lesson for us all, a lesson of courage and a reminder of how quickly prejudices and biases can turn to hate. As Canadians, we must be diligent and we must fight prejudice and racism. However, it is not enough to simply issue statements. We cannot be silent in our communities, in our homes or in our country. Silence and complacency are not options. We cannot rest in the assurance that the horrors of the concentration camps are simply a part of history.

We must be vigilant, because right wing extremism and fascism still exist in every country. We must ensure full application of the laws which prohibit hate, and work together to promote a strong and healthy democracy in Canada.

The Holocaust in many ways is something that happened to all of us. It is a part of our history and it is something we are all responsible for in ensuring that peace, justice, and freedom in every country in this world are more than just words.

Canada will remember. The world will remember.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Madam Speaker, I want to join with my colleagues in the House in commemorating the 50th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi concentration camps. We must never forget the millions who were murdered at the hands of the heinous Nazi regime.

I also want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the many Canadians who fought so that the future generations could live in peace and freedom.

I shall never forget as a little girl, when I was only five years old, when my brothers came in to tell my mother and my father that they had signed up to go overseas. They were overseas in France, Germany, and Italy. I will never forget the prayers and the hard times my mother had, hoping and praying she would hear from them. And I will never forget when I was a little girl and we went to the train station to greet them when they returned safe and sound.

If there was ever a war that needed to be won, it was the second world war. It hardly needs saying that the world would be a dark and different place today if the allies had not achieved victory.

We must never forget the unspeakable horror the death camps brought forth. They are a symbol of what can result from hatred and racism.

Today we witness the suffering of innocents around the world who are the victims of ethnically motivated conflict. Let us remember what such hatreds can lead to and be ever vigilant in our efforts to make sure it is not allowed to happen again.

Yes, Canada will remember.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Madam Speaker, I would like to move a motion, with the unanimous consent of the House, which I am pleased to say has four seconders: the hon. member for Châteauguay, the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, the hon. member for Yukon, and the hon. member for Saint John. I move:

That this House solemnly commemorates the 50th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi concentration camps, remembers the lives of the millions of men, women and children who perished at the hands of tyranny, and honours the many Canadians who fought for freedom and justice at a time of darkness.

(Motion agreed to.)

Interparliamentary Delegations

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34 I have the honour to present to the House a report from the Canadian branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association concerning our visit to Hong Kong from March 13 to 17, 1995.

Petitions

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a nationally circulated petition that has been received by me. This particular petition was signed by a number of petitioners from the St. Marys area of Ontario.

The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession, which has not been recognized for its value to our society.

They also state that the Income Tax Act discriminates against families who make the choice to provide care in the home to preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.

Therefore, the petitioners pray and call upon Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, NL]

Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition to the House.

These petitioners are all from Gambo in Bonavista North in my riding. They note that whereas the majority of Canadians are law-abiding citizens, that the majority of Canadians respect the sanctity of human life, and that physicians in Canada should be working to save lives, they humbly pray that Parliament would make no changes in the law that would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by many of my constituents of Ottawa Centre who are calling on the government to take action in order to deal with crime throughout Canada, mainly in urban centres. I would like to lend my support to this petition.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to table. The first one is signed by 58 people, mostly from Saskatchewan. These petitioners are asking that the Criminal Code provisions to prevent assisted suicide and euthanasia be maintained.

With those 58 signatories, the total number of petitions tabled to date on this issue is 29,506.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I also want to table a petition on behalf of another member. I know it is not customary to refer to the absence of a member, but this is the case of the unfortunate illness of the member of Parliament for Nepean. I am sure that I speak on behalf of all of us when I wish her to come back to Parliament very soon.

On behalf of the electors of the constituency represented by the member for Nepean, I want to table a petition signed by 25 signatories who are asking that there be no additional gun control measures.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement and pursuant to Standing Order 33(2), Government Orders will be extended by 16 minutes.

Supply

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

moved:

That this House recognize that since the inception of our national health care system the federal share of funding for health care in Canada has fallen from 50 per cent to 23 per cent and therefore the House urges the government to consult with the provinces and other stakeholders to determine core services to be completely funded by the federal and provincial governments and non-core services where private insurance and the benefactors of the services might play a supplementary role.

Madam Speaker, I rise to address the Reform motion before the House, but before I do so I would like to say a word about broken promises.

One of the reasons there is so much public cynicism about politics and government is that governments consistently break their promises. This Liberal government, for example, is not yet two years old but already it has littered the political landscape with broken promises.

For example, there was the promise to base key federal appointments solely on competence rather than patronage, a promise routinely broken almost every week.

There was the promise by the now Deputy Prime Minister to resign if the GST was not replaced within one year of the election, shamelessly broken on October 25, 1994.

There was the promise not to alter federal-provincial transfers without the full co-operation of the provinces, which was broken by the introduction of the Canada social transfer in the February budget.

There was the promise to provide a new blueprint-

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Two days ago a member rose in the House on a point of order to indicate that the speaker was not addressing the motion on the floor. I believe this is the same case. Therefore, I would make the point that the member should be addressing the motion.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Resuming debate with the hon. leader of the Reform Party.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

There was a promise to provide a new blueprint for social reform. It was broken without apology or explanation when the Minister of Human Resources Development failed to deliver his green paper.

There was a promise not to increase the tax load on the long suffering, overtaxed Canadian taxpayer. It was broken to the tune of $500 million a year with the imposition of a 1.5 cent a litre tax on gasoline.

There was a promise of a more open Parliament where MPs would be free from party discipline. It was dictatorially broken when Liberal MPs who voted against the government's gun control bill were stripped of their committee positions.

The first part of the motion we are considering draws attention to yet another broken Liberal promise, one of the most serious of all. For the benefit of members, this is the connection between broken promises and the motion.

When national medicare was introduced at the federal level by a minority Liberal government 30 years ago, Prime Minister Pearson solemnly promised Canadians, the provinces and the House that the federal government would pay 50 per cent of the costs. This was the fiscal promise on which medicare rested. This was the condition insisted on by the provinces and promised by the federal government, a promise without which the provinces would not have agreed to national medicare.

The Liberals even wrote that promise into the old 1966 medical care act, section 5, which stated that "the amount of the contribution payable by Canada to a province in respect to a medical care insurance plan is an amount equal to 50 per cent of". It then went on to list the various cost components of the plan.

What is the state of that sacred promise today? Today the federal government's contribution to health care funding is not 50 per cent as promised. It is now less than 23 per cent and falling.

The Prime Minister and the health minister can profess their undying commitment to the principles of medicare until they retire from public life clutching their two-tier MP pension. The truth of the matter is that every day, every hour in every province, in every community, in every part of the country, whenever and wherever Canadians draw on national medicare, the government is breaking its fundamental promise to pay 50 per cent of the bill.

Because it is breaking that fundamental financial promise it is slowly undermining the other principles of medicare. It undermines accessibility as waiting lists get longer and longer. It undermines comprehensiveness as more and more health services are delisted from provincial insurance plans. It undermines universality as the system evolves into a multi-tier system with access to the various tiers being tied increasingly to ability to pay.

The second part of the motion before the House proposes a solution to this dilemma, which I will get to in a moment. Before I do so I would like to clear away one of the myths of medicare, a myth to which the Prime Minister and the health minister cling, a myth which prevents a clear diagnosis of the problem and the solution. That myth is that Canada has a one-tier medical system to which all Canadians have universal access regardless of ability to pay and opening up the Canada Health Act will lead to a U.S. style two-tiered system where ability to pay is the key to access.

The indisputable fact is that Canada already has a multi-tiered health care system, access to which has been made more restricted by rising health care costs and declining federal support. The challenge is to reform medicare so that one of those tiers contains all the essential health services required by Canadians, financed by sufficient federal and provincial funding so that no Canadian is denied access to those services because of inability to pay.

How to do that I will discuss in a moment. Lest there be some simple minded folk among us who still cling to the notion that Canada still has a single-tiered medical care system, let me submit evidence to the contrary.

I could quote from the exhaustive 1994 health care study by Dr. Ralph Sutherland and Dr. Jane Fulton entitled "Spending Smarter and Spending Less". On pages 98 and 99 of that study, they discussed the myth of the one-tier system and dismiss it as nonsense. They end by saying that the two-tier system is and always has been a reality in Canada.

They then go on to discuss how to make a multi-tier system work for the benefit of all Canadians which is the real challenge and real problem. Rather than quote extensively from the academic or technical literature, I prefer to share with the House a note I received just yesterday from a Canadian physician to whom I put the question, does Canada presently have a one-tier or two-tier system?

He says flatly that a two-tier system already exists. Should a person be admitted to a hospital, he or she can obtain a private room should he or she have the funds to pay for it or an insurance program that covers it. Otherwise this is not available.

People can hire a private duty nurse for 24-hour care if they can afford to pay for it. Many nursing and home care services are also available should the patient be able to afford to pay for them.

Recently midwifery has been introduced. Again this is only available to those who can afford to pay for these services. People can have access to procedures such as abortions in private facilities if they are able to pay the private facility fee.

People who can afford to may have an insurance plan to cover the cost of pharmaceuticals. Those who cannot afford to pay this fee must pay for it out of their own pocket.

The Workers' Compensation Board in this province has contracted many private facilities to provide services for its clients in order for them to obtain these services more quickly than possible in the public system and thus get them back to work in a more timely fashion.

Members of the military have been flown to the base hospital in Ottawa to have surgical procedures performed rather than being on a waiting list. I have also recently learned that the military purchases surgical procedures such as arthroscopies at private clinics as it is cheaper than purchasing the same procedures through the public sector.

As well, we all know the ultimate two-tier system is available to those who can afford to pay for it by leaving the country and having services provided in the United States.

Many leading edge technologies and therapies are not available in this country. In order to obtain them one must leave the country and purchase them in the U.S. A country of our stature should be ashamed of the fact that it is not able to provide those services.

He concludes by saying: "As I hope is demonstrated by the above examples, almost all aspects of health care in Canada are two-tiered and available to people on a private basis except for the physician's services. This and certain procedures which are only available in public hospitals are the only services that are not presently available in two tiers in this country".

Why on earth the Prime Minister and the health minister would continue to deny the existence of a multi-tiered health care system or to pretend that the five criteria of the Canada Health Act preclude such a system is beyond me. Childlike belief in the myths of medicare at the highest levels of the federal government must end if the problems of Canadian health care are to be resolved.

The second portion of the motion before us indicates the way in which Reform believes the government could guarantee universal access for all Canadians to a set of essential health services regardless of ability to pay in a multi-tiered system.

In order to provide secure funding for health care into the 21st century, substantive discussions and negotiations are required among all the key players: representatives of health care users, taxpayers, health care practitioners, health care administrators, health care insurers, the provinces and the federal government.

Reform proposes that these discussions and negotiations should focus on completing a health care funding matrix such as that shown on page 48 of the Reform taxpayers budget.

This is the type of framework for refinancing health care, saving medicare, which the Prime Minister and the federal government should have provided through that national health care forum which they have not. This is the framework required to produce meaningful amendments to the Canada Health Act, amendments which the health minister continues to fail to provide. This framework suggests that the first item on the agenda should be a discussion of how best to divide essential health services into core services and non-core services.

The core services would be those health care services most essential to Canadians, the financing of which would be guaranteed by the federal and provincial governments up to some minimal national standard. They would be those services which make the most demonstrable contribution to improving the health of Canadians and which must be provided in the most cost effective way possible.

These core services would constitute the heart of medicare. All Canadians would be guaranteed access to these services across the country up to some national standard regardless of their ability to pay.

Provinces and individuals would be allowed to provide and secure services that went beyond the core services if they so desired. The federal government would not be involved in the financing of such services.

Services designated as non-core services, for example, cosmetic surgery as distinguished from more necessary surgery or

fibreglass casts for broken limbs as distinct from plaster casts, would be funded through a more flexible combination of funding sources, including private insurance and user pay.

To those members opposite who will challenge us to elaborate on what should be considered core and non-core services, I would invite them to listen carefully to my medical colleagues, the member for Macleod and the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, and ask questions at the end of those remarks.

I would encourage all MPs to refrain from getting too deeply into that discussion. It is not our role in the federal Parliament, either constitutionally or practically. It is not the role of a distant federal government that is paying less than one-quarter of the bills to define those services. That is the old way. It is the top down way. It is the Meech Lake approach to medicare. It is the centralizing way and it is not the way of the future.

The definition of those services must primarily come from health care users, the people who use them, from the practitioners who actually practice them and from the administrators at the local and provincial levels. We should do everything we can through parliamentary committees, personal speeches and dialogue, through the national health care forum to facilitate those discussions and to listen. But we should not try to dictate the final division of services.

After those discussions occur, our role will be to commit federal funding to whatever Canadians define as core services, up to some minimal national standard in co-operation with the provinces.

There is no question in my mind that there is an urgent need for health care reform in Canada, particularly in light of the failure of the federal budget to eliminate the deficit. These reforms are required to preserve the best features of the present system; to prevent the funding system from being completely destroyed by interest on the debt; to provide flexibility to allow the provinces' health care administrators and physicians to better adapt to the health care needs of Canadians.

Canadians are asking and will continue to ask: From whom is the leadership for health care reform going to come? I would suggest it is not coming from the federal government under the current Prime Minister or health minister. They resist every proposal for change. They resist the diagnosis that would lead to real proposals for change. They charge anyone who advocates change with being an enemy of medicare, which is a reactionary position, or a proponent of U.S. style health care, charges which are completely untrue. They are only dragged into the discussion of health care reform at all by their officials telling them that if they do not do something, the system is going to collapse and they are going to carry the blame.

Therefore I suggest that the leadership for health care reform, and it is occurring in many spheres, where the public is now ahead of the politicians and the government, must come from the patient user community, from taxpayers, from the medical community, from administrators and local governments, from provincial authorities, from the bottom up, not the top down.

If in 1960 Ottawa had had the monopoly it has today on setting terms and conditions of health care services and financing, the present medicare system would not have come into being. Canadian medicare did not start in Ottawa. It did not start anywhere near Ottawa. It started in Saskatchewan and it really started there in an operational sense with the Swift Current Hospital District in that province.

The concept was incorporated by the old CCF into its political platform and then stolen by the federal Liberals. I can assure concerned citizens and real health care reformers across the country they will find allies and advocates of sensible change to the health care system in the Reform caucus.

I urge all hon. members who wish to save and advance the best features of Canadian medicare to support this motion.

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect to the leader of the third party, he has certainly spoken of broken promises and has gone on at great length about it.

Speaking of broken promises, during the election and following I can recall the leader of the Reform Party stating: "I want to make it absolutely clear that the Reform Party is not promoting private health care, deductibles or user fees". Yet, today what is he talking about? Deductibles, user fees, getting more and more private. That was yesterday; this is today. Talk about breaking promises.

I can recall the Reform Party rhetoric during the last election. How does the hon. member explain his change of thinking or his whole party's change in rhetoric? How, pray tell, would that ensure that people who needed the care got it based on their need and not on whether they could afford to pay for it.

Let us face it. This is from a party that does not advocate any taxation increases whatsoever. Taxes are based on fairness. If you make more money, you pay more tax. They are proposing a tax on illness. The sicker you are, the more costly it is for you. What kind of a system is that? I would like an explanation.

How would the leader of the Reform Party deal with people who are very ill who, by the way, tend to be the poorest? Usually those who are very sick cannot work anymore. He might be charitable to a few and there would be these core services; maybe you could have a band-aid if you could not afford to pay

for it. What kind of medicare is he proposing except the American style of system? And we know what that is about.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would remind the minister that while there is only a handful of us here in the House her remarks on this subject are being carefully monitored these days by the practitioners and administrators and particularly by the provinces. The statements made here that completely deny the reality of the health care system do no service to this House nor to the government's position on the seriousness of the problem. They create the impression that we literally do not understand how the system works. That is a discredit to the minister and the government.

From what the minister says, we can tell her views of what Reform said during the election are based on what a clipping service says Reform is about. They bear no resemblance whatsoever to the positions we have articulated, particularly the Reform colleagues with medical backgrounds.

With respect to her particular question of how we facilitate the payment for services for people in this category of poor services, the minister could not have been listening to what I said. We say we should define a set of core services that are essential to the care of Canadians. Those are the services to which we would dedicate entirely the federal and provincial contributions to the funding of medicare. Those services would be brought within the financial reach of every Canadian no matter where they lived, regardless of their ability to pay. The non-essential services can be provided through other financing sources such as insurance and even user pay. That is perfectly clear.

These proposals have been presented by other health care reformers in the health care field itself and in the provinces. It is time for the minister to acknowledge them for what they are, not to pretend they are something else.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member put forward an eloquent speech, wonderful rhetoric. It shows a depth though of the superficiality of the understanding of what health care is all about and what the five principles of medicare actually mean.

I would not like to add any further rhetoric but to say that with this lack of understanding would the hon. member like to explain to me what he understands by the meaning of the term "core services". He bandies it about and uses it a lot. I would like to know from him what he means by core services.