Madam Speaker, I apologise.
Another member of the opposition party said: "I think that there is not one Canadian or Quebecer who questions the importance and value of the five principles set out in the Canada Health Act".
The hon. critic again said that the federal government should uphold the five principles. Maybe I am not confused, maybe members of the opposition are confused.
The five principles of the Canada Health Act embody the whole concept of what is most important to Canadians. What Canadians constantly use to define themselves as a people is Canadian medicare. It is an example of how federal principles can act in partnership with provincial governments, which administer the program, to make things better. The Canada Health Act enhances medicare. It continues to tell us who we are as Canadians. It binds us together in terms of our values, in terms of equity, in terms of fairness and in terms of compassion.
In 1984 when the Canada Health Act was introduced it was unanimously agreed on by all parties in the House.
It makes sense. The Canada Health Act binds the country together while at the same time it gives the regions the freedom to be able to administer and decide with flexibility what it is they require in their region. I would like to use the Canada Health Act as a very good example of how we can have national standards, enshrine them in legislation and yet give freedom to the provinces to administer that act. It has worked extremely well.
National principles tell us that we have an objective which we are all working toward. At the same time we allow the provinces to decide how they will meet those objectives, based on things such as their economy, the needs of their people, geographic and demographic differences. It gives the provinces freedom but at the same time it holds the country together.
We should look again at what the Canada Health Act has given to us. We are one of the few countries in the world that enjoys a high standard of living, the best quality of life. The GATT, when it looked at the measurement of outcome, which is infant mortality, we rank second or third in the world in terms of those measures and those outcomes. Obviously national standards legislated with provincial jurisdiction to administer has worked. Canadian medicare is an example of how well it works and how well it can give us flexibility at a time when global competitiveness is what we are talking about, when Canada needs to be competitive with the rest of the world.
It makes sense to me that the federal government would transfer money to the provinces to administer other aspects of social programs, post-secondary education and social assistance, in the same way, looking toward a national objective that could be competitiveness.
The human resource will be the resource of the 21st century. Canada's medicare has enhanced our human resource potential. It has given us a competitive edge in terms of the fact that healthy people work. The less sick days, the less time off work, which makes any business profitable and give us an economic and competitive edge.
If we negotiated with the provinces for a set of national standards for post-secondary education and training, we would enhance the ability of the country to be competitive and to have trained people able to compete with the rest of the world.
This makes sense to me. I started off by saying that I was confused. I end by saying that this is not the real question. It is a political and hidden agenda by a group that does not really want to do anything but destroy the country and fragment what it has meant.