Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Beaver River, once again, for giving me a standing ovation.
Take two aspirins and call me in the morning.
We have a problem so cut the deficit. That is their only solution. Do not look at what is happening within the services that are being provided, do not call upon the medical community to find more efficient and more effective ways to deliver services. Cut the deficit. Cut the funding.
The member for Beaver River called upon me to talk a bit about the Liberal approach to this. The leader of the Reform Party talks about cutting the deficit. In fact, total savings from our Liberal budget will be $29 billion over the next three years. This budget represents, by everyone's criteria, the strongest fiscal action taken by a government, certainly since the war years.
I was on a local radio show with a fellow by the name Peter Warren back home, who has been on the air for 25 years. I asked him if he had ever seen a tougher budget, and he said no.
This government is living up to its promises to be fiscally responsible, but it is being fiscally responsible in a morally responsible way. It is not throwing the weakest people out of the boat. It is not saying let those folks who can afford it go off on their own and do what they want and forget about the others. It is saying we are all in this together, we are all part of the same family, we are all part of the same country, and we will solve these problems.
One of the issues the Minister of Finance talked about over and over again was fairness, that we would do this, we would swallow the tough medicine, we would make the tough decisions, but we would do it fairly.
In the speech of the leader of the Reform Party he talked about how the Prime Minister's speech contained no workable framework or plan whatsoever for the reform of medicare.
I do not know where the leader has been. He has not been in the House that much, but certainly has people who can read, who can talk about the council, who can look at the work the minister has been undertaking to work with the provinces, to work with people to find solutions for what are some very difficult, very complex issues that confront all of us.
The federal government is already engaged in discussions with all the key players. A number of provinces, the conference of the Ministers of Health, the federal-provincial advisory committees, bilateral meetings with health organizations, and consultations with Canadians through the National Forum on Health, ensure that all parties are informed and working together to ensure that Canadians have access to a responsive, effective, and affordable health system.
There is another aspect to this. If the member for Beaver River wants to talk about the cost, there is a very significant cost to poor health. There is a very significant cost to poor children. There is a very significant cost to unhealthy children.
The fact is that universal access means, yes, that my children get coverage, which I can afford to pay for, but it also means that those who cannot afford it get coverage. It means that we also care about their public health needs. It means that kids go to school stronger, more fit, more physically active and more ready to learn. It also means that people are able to pursue careers. It means that people are more able to be productive, working and contributing to society. Good health care is a foundation of a healthy community. To risk destroying that in the cavalier way the Reform Party does is irresponsible.
The Reform Party has been accused at times of speaking in code. I want to add a bit more code to the discussion. The leader of the Reform Party said: "Reform therefore favours the decentralization, localization, and personalization of health care delivery", and to amend the Canada Health Act to provide this kind of flexibility.
Is it not interesting that mere minutes ago, when I talked about the problem that my nephew had in a different state trying to access health care, the members opposite said: "Oh no, we do not mean that". Then what does decentralization mean? What does localization mean, except specific services in a specific area? What does that do if I do not come from that area, if they are not insured in my area?
Do we really build a system where certain Canadians have certain kinds of services and other Canadians have different kinds of services when it comes to our health? Is that really what we are promoting?
What does personalization mean? Does it mean user pay? Does it mean the ability of those who can pay will pay? Does that not just promote a greater fracturing of the community?