Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address this problem.
I had an opportunity to meet with some graduates in my constituency last Friday from three classes of high school students in three different areas. I asked each one of these classes, "Why do you think health, post-secondary education, and welfare are being reviewed in Canada today?" They said to me: "We think this is a political agenda. This somehow is something the politicians must do."
When I explained to them I took from some brand new federal documents from StatsCan the following figures. These figures are a fascinating indictment of some of the things we have tried to do in our country. Servicing the federal government debt will cost $1,522 per person in 1994-95. The federal government in 1994-95 will spend $268 per person on health and $168 on post-secondary education. That is $1,522 compared to $268 and $168.
The students in those three high school classes said to me: "Isn't that the problem then? Isn't that the problem for Quebec? Isn't that the problem for Alberta?" My answer is yes, that is the problem.
It would be very easy to be an opposition member and point fingers and blame the Liberal government. I do not think that is helpful.
In the same report it goes on to say-just in case those in Quebec think they can point the finger only at the federal government-that the provincial debt in Quebec is the highest in Canada, at $8,413 per person.
These figures go on to show all the provinces lined up in terms of their debt. The next closest is Nova Scotia, with $8,405, all the way down to Alberta, at $1,404 per person. I invite members to look at these documents. They are publicly available.
It is not sufficient to stand back as an Albertan and say it is the problem of the federal government. This is a Canadian problem, a problem far too big to be pointing fingers at.
I have had occasion to try to determine who is leading the debate in Canada. My big interest is health care, and I find that the public is far ahead of the politicians in this debate. The CBC has just done a four-part program on the future of our health care system, something that is unheard of in Canada. At the end of their four-part program it did a survey and asked Canadians if health care, the way it is set up today, is affordable. This question was not asked in a political sense; it was asked to practical, commonsense Canadians: Can we afford health care the way it is set up today?
Before I go to the answer, 57 per cent said health care was the most important government social program. I agree. However, about 90 per cent of Canadians polled in that survey said they expected medicare would cover fewer services in the future; 45 per cent predicted all necessary services would be retained;
another 45 per cent said only the most essential services would be covered and that most people would have to pay for much of the other health care needs.
When Reformers stood in the House last Thursday to initiate the first debate on health care in the House literally in years, an old time parliamentarian said to me: "Is it not interesting who should initiate this debate on health care? There has not been such a debate for years." When we stood in the House and initiated this debate, the press said you cannot talk about this, it is a sacred program; you cannot talk about changes to health care. However, the public in Canada says otherwise. I think the public is ahead of the politicians.
Can we trust the government to do what is right? Can we trust the party opposite, the government of the day, to do what is right? I do not believe that we could hope for anything but. On health care, this government will do what is right. Canadians value this program so strongly that no one could get away with doing what is wrong on health care. Can we trust the government to move in the right direction on health care reform?
I listened to the Prime Minister say he felt that health care needed to return to basics. When my province asked for a definition of the basics, the hands went up and the answer came: "No chance for that". A senior medical practitioner in Quebec said virtually the same thing. And this is new information. It comes from the senior general medical practitioner in Quebec who said there needs to be a change in the way health care is delivered because "the Quebec public health care system is on the brink of bankruptcy." Those are Dr. Clément Richer's words, not mine.
Is the rhetoric sufficient on social program review? It is not. Are promises that were made in the red book 18 months ago sufficient on social program reform? They are not. Quebec is asking and I believe the Bloc is asking to be treated fairly under the new proposals. I support them in that request. They deserve to be treated fairly as does every citizen in Canada. Shall we blame, argue, point fingers? My advisers say no, we need to find solutions.
The motion the Bloc has presented is well intentioned, however, it does not point to any solutions. It seems to me to be pointing fingers. Members of the Bloc should look at Quebec's own debt. Look at the $8,400 worth of provincial debt. Consider that with the $18,000 of debt which is federal. The two go hand in hand and are extremely important.
I ask the question, what will keep Quebec in Canada? Surely that is my desire. Quebecers need the freedom to nourish their culture and their language. They need authority over areas of provincial jurisdiction. I feel that Quebecers looking at Canada as most Canadians look at Quebec, equals working toward a common goal. The rhetoric will die out. Practicality will win out.
I listened to the Minister of Health ask on Thursday, how would Reformers coerce the provinces into following national standards, and I shake my head. The provinces do not need to be coerced into following social program review. They need to have the tools. They need to have the information. They need to have the co-operation. They need to have the work of every single man and woman in these chambers.
It is a privilege to be a member of this House. When parliamentarians argue and gripe and frown and grimace at one another it sometimes detracts from the importance of the job that we do here. I dedicate my service to try to make sure that we have good social programs in Canada, programs that will survive the economic crisis we are in. That service is too important to be denigrated by arguing.